PC Gamer review

[Wodin]

Erm...everygame thats released gets modded to make it even better. Thats the beauty of PC games. I don't care if I have to download a mod or not to be honest. As long as the core gameplay works thats fine by me.

[PLM2]

....no they don't. You don't have to download mods for most games. Not like in CM where there's a small community of fanatics and an active modding community. Most people don't just play one or 2 or 3 games. There's been a dramatic shift in the last 5 years even of how much people spread their gaming time between games. People don't focus on one or 2 games and mod them like that. At least outside here. And I sure don't

[Guest]

I'd say a certain class of games get modded. Namely, those with a fair amount of replay value and / or deep inherent mod-ability. (I'm assuming Skyrim, for example, will be modded heavily, assuming the tools are provided.) And CM has plenty of the former and a decent amount of the latter. I think the best thing about that is that you, the player, get to choose your experience in several key areas of the game. It's neat.

Also neat: a review in PC Gamer. Nice to see that.

Regarding discussions about me on other forums: people can say what they want to, short of some very obvious legal boundaries. Apart from that unlikely occurrence people are welcome to assume that I am a blue moon alien who understands only the binary language of load lifters. They'd be wrong, but hell, I can't stop 'em.

[sburke]

I'd say a certain class of games get modded. Namely, those with a fair amount of replay value and / or deep inherent mod-ability. (I'm assuming Skyrim, for example, will be modded heavily, assuming the tools are provided.) And CM has plenty of the former and a decent amount of the latter. I think the best thing about that is that you, the player, get to choose your experience in several key areas of the game. It's neat.

Also neat: a review in PC Gamer. Nice to see that.

Regarding discussions about me on other forums: people can say what they want to, short of some very obvious legal boundaries. Apart from that unlikely occurrence people are welcome to assume that I am a blue moon alien who understands only the binary language of load lifters. They'd be wrong, but hell, I can't stop 'em.

Blue Moon is dang good beer, nothing to be ashamed of at all. And if empty and unopened are the only parameters you need to factor in, binary works fine. Now get back to work and stop discussing drinking. You can drink while you work, you just can't talk about it. And who is this Mod Skyrim, did he have any credits on Quadrophenia?

[Guest]

Blue Moon is dang good beer, nothing to be ashamed of at all. And if empty and unopened are the only parameters you need to factor in, binary works fine.

My sister and her husband insist on dropping limes into their Blue Moons. I don't buy it, mostly to keep them away from my citrus collection. I'm more of a stout man myself anyway, beer- and otherwise.

Now get back to work and stop discussing drinking. You can drink while you work, you just can't talk about it. And who is this Mod Skyrim, did he have any credits on Quadrophenia?

Yes. He played that flexible tube thing you swing above your head with a mike attached. And you're correct about the drinking.

[sburke]

Gawd I hate when folks do that to wheat beer. You want to stick fruit in that Corona piss, sure it needs some flavor, but why ruin a good brew? I can drink Guiness on tap all day long but most stouts aren't of that same quality. Okay maybe Samuel Smith's... anything by them.... oh gawd a beer thread. better cut this short now before it causes trouble.

[Alchenar]

I rather liked the PC Zone descriptors of the scoring brackets: 90-100% meant a game that literally anyone within reason could pick up and enjoy without being a fan of the genre, 80-90% meant a game that was 'top of it's genre' and a must have, and 70-80% meant a game that was alright but had some glaring flaws that if you were a fan you would be able to forgive and enjoy. From that perspective 73% sounds just right.

Also everyone defending the Combat Mission interface is insane; it's a horrible, horrible system to use. The fact that many other wargames have worse interfaces is besides the point; all wargames have terrible interfaces and it's a problem that's killing the genre because it puts off new players. It's also especially hard to excuse given that as has already been pointed out - a bad interface takes just as much time to make as a good interface.

Also all wargamers should be forced to read this before they have opinions on what makes a good game or not.

e: yes, it's about operational level games but many of the rules still apply at the tactical level

[ChrisND]

Also all wargamers should be forced to read this before they have opinions on what makes a good game or not.

e: yes, it's about operational level games but many of the rules still apply at the tactical level

That is an excellent article.

[Erwin]

Yes, well worth reading.

It's also well worth reading the discussion that follows. Wish we could have that sort of intelligent discussion here regarding game design without the usual name-calling that seem to predominate.

[sburke]

Yes, well worth reading.

It's also well worth reading the discussion that follows. Wish we could have that sort of intelligent discussion here regarding game design without the usual name-calling that seem to predominate.

Well almost anyway- I did notice our old favorite term fanboi did make it to the party.

Also everyone defending the Combat Mission interface is insane; it's a horrible, horrible system to use. The fact that many other wargames have worse interfaces is besides the point; all wargames have terrible interfaces and it's a problem that's killing the genre because it puts off new players. It's also especially hard to excuse given that as has already been pointed out - a bad interface takes just as much time to make as a good interface.

Also all wargamers should be forced to read this before they have opinions on what makes a good game or not.

Read it, found it interesting, but I guess I am still insane as making adjustments to the UI is still not at the top of my list. No amount of repetitive claims about how horrible it is are going to make it any more difficult for me to use. Sure there are things they could probably do to reorganize it, but it does the job for me and quite well. I don't know where we define killing the genre and putting off new players as there may be anecdotal statements by a number of individuals, but the only actual hard data we have for this particular product - BFC sales- says that is not the case and BFC is doing apparently quite well.

[c3k]

Good article. Thanks for the link. Now I know why TOAW is still sitting, mostly unplayed, on my shelf. Also, now I know why I STILL remember, with a smile, the tutorial for Myth II, Soulblighter. I can still hear that dwarf cursing as he blows things up.

[ChrisND]

Good article. Thanks for the link. Now I know why TOAW is still sitting, mostly unplayed, on my shelf. Also, now I know why I STILL remember, with a smile, the tutorial for Myth II, Soulblighter. I can still hear that dwarf cursing as he blows things up.

I think all tutorials could benefit from more dwarves cursing while blowing things up. No exceptions.

[ClarkWGriswold]

Also all wargamers should be forced to read this before they have opinions on what makes a good game or not.

e: yes, it's about operational level games but many of the rules still apply at the tactical level

I don't think wargamers should have to read that article, but wargame makers sure should! The author totally "gets it". Virtually everything he complains about applies to CMBN. What a fantastic article.

[Alchenar]

Read it, found it interesting, but I guess I am still insane as making adjustments to the UI is still not at the top of my list. No amount of repetitive claims about how horrible it is are going to make it any more difficult for me to use. Sure there are things they could probably do to reorganize it, but it does the job for me and quite well. I don't know where we define killing the genre and putting off new players as there may be anecdotal statements by a number of individuals, but the only actual hard data we have for this particular product - BFC sales- says that is not the case and BFC is doing apparently quite well.

Here's the thing: if you were designing the Combat Mission UI from scratch, could you honestly say that you would do it in a way that looks anything like how it looks now?

The is the frustration that we come to time and again - the problem isn't spending extra development time on the UI; it's that the time spent is wasted on horrible decisions that make no sense.

e: mainly because:

"My contention is that it is poorly designed because of a feedback loop wherein the designers never test the games with new players, so new players never play the games, because they are unplayable, so the games are only tested by people whose entire attitude is “As long as it is easier than pushing 600 cardboard chits around a paper map, it’s a massive improvement!, so the designers never realize the games are unplayable."

[BletchleyGeek]

I don't think wargamers should have to read that article, but wargame makers sure should! The author totally "gets it". Virtually everything he complains about applies to CMBN. What a fantastic article.

Indeed, a really good article. I just want to note that WitE developers have been making improvements on the UI based on players' feedback. One funny comment about WitE just after release "Wow, this just doesn't like one of Gary Grigsby's games", because of pretty functional interface. TOAW is actually a community project, the UI (and the game engine) is now 13 years old. ATG, well, is ATG

For CM:BN the problem I see is that the kind of UI changes and improvements that have been discussed on the forums would require comparatively a lot more of programming work than in WitE (and I say, really a lot more).

[c3k]

What, in detail, would you do?

Keep all the game functionality, add the desirable features everyone's listing, and integrate it into a newb-friendly system.

Seriously: it's easy to rip apart the UI, it'd be more helpful to do the harder task of showing what kind of UI you desire.

[BletchleyGeek]

What, in detail, would you do?

Keep all the game functionality, add the desirable features everyone's listing, and integrate it into a newb-friendly system.

Seriously: it's easy to rip apart the UI, it'd be more helpful to do the harder task of showing what kind of UI you desire.

Some threads you can check with very detailed proposals:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100750

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98491

others, such as getting the same menu one gets by hitting the space bar when right clicking on a unit I think don't need any mockup. They're self-evident.

Some of these complaints have been found to be moddable

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97781

(Marco Bergmann's mod depicting more intuitively vehicle armor levels and penetration, that mod I don't remember right now about pixeltruppen status display, etc.) but there's clearly limits to what's moddable and what's not.

You can see there have been quite a few individuals trying to make constructive criticism of the UI (and I'm sure there are quite a few more examples out there I'm not aware).

EDIT: I admit it's hard to keep track of all these discussions, would be nice to have all proposals and mods which might address some concerns, in one single place.

[Alchenar]

Indeed, a really good article. I just want to note that WitE developers have been making improvements on the UI based on players' feedback. One funny comment about WitE just after release "Wow, this just doesn't like one of Gary Grigsby's games", because of pretty functional interface. TOAW is actually a community project, the UI (and the game engine) is now 13 years old. ATG, well, is ATG

For CM:BN the problem I see is that the kind of UI changes and improvements that have been discussed on the forums would require comparatively a lot more of programming work than in WitE (and I say, really a lot more).

Well, before WitE we had WitP:AE, where different teams worked on the land, sea and air components, with the result that all three work in completely different ways with no consistency between them.

Those threads that BletchleyGeek is keeping tabs on are excellent and address both the 'information is hidden' and 'buttons buttons everywhere but none I want to press' problem of CM:N. I also wouldn't mind getting a right-click pop-up command menu ala-Close Combat; now that was a game series with a good UI.

[BletchleyGeek]

Well, before WitE we had WitP:AE, where different teams worked on the land, sea and air components, with the result that all three work in completely different ways with no consistency between them.

Yes, I know too well But at the bottom the same problem as in TOAW. The UI was programmed for Uncommon Valour (2002) and after that, we only saw it tweaked, not really "revised". Most of the problems we had in WitP:AE were already in UV.

If we wanted to set a "gold standard" for what a wargame UI should be like, we should look at Panther Games' Command Ops series, really (it's commented already on the Tea Leaves article comments). It not only covers all the bases - it even has Map Hotspots which highlight major events on the map - but also uses AI to streamline player actions (can't be arsed to "plot" all the counters belonging to 101st Airborne? No problem, just plot a mission for the 101st HQ and the AI will do the rest). And also deals admirably well with "information overload" with event filters and toggling units graphical display to keep track of morale, cohesion, supply etc., While it is an operational game - though amazingly detailed both in the terrain and in the OOB - these can indeed be a problem for a tactical game... you can only imagine how overwhelming can be to keep track of things in scenarios (Command Ops is pure RT, no WEGO) like the one covering the whole push of XLVII PzKorps towards Bastogne.

Getting anything like that on top of a 3D display, though, as I said before, may well possibly be a LOT of work.

I also wouldn't mind getting a right-click pop-up command menu ala-Close Combat; now that was a game series with a good UI.

Yet another hallmark of Atomic Games titles: nice interfaces.

[c3k]

Some threads you can check with very detailed proposals:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100750

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98491

others, such as getting the same menu one gets by hitting the space bar when right clicking on a unit I think don't need any mockup. They're self-evident.

Some of these complaints have been found to be moddable

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97781

(Marco Bergmann's mod depicting more intuitively vehicle armor levels and penetration, that mod I don't remember right now about pixeltruppen status display, etc.) but there's clearly limits to what's moddable and what's not.

You can see there have been quite a few individuals trying to make constructive criticism of the UI (and I'm sure there are quite a few more examples out there I'm not aware).

EDIT: I admit it's hard to keep track of all these discussions, would be nice to have all proposals and mods which might address some concerns, in one single place.

Thanks for searching for, and linking to, those threads. However, my original query stands: how would you integrate all these ideas into a newb-friendly UI? And, based on the criticisms raised, how do you make the UI intuitive?

Remember, for the purpose of this exercise, all functionality has to be retained. Add whatever you'd like. The entire UI is yours to design. Go for it. I'm seriously interested in what ideas will come forth.

Ken

[BletchleyGeek]

Thanks for searching for, and linking to, those threads. However, my original query stands: how would you integrate all these ideas into a newb-friendly UI? And, based on the criticisms raised, how do you make the UI intuitive?

Well, you can see a mockup of what the screen layout would be as well as quite detailed textual description of what each new element is meant to do. If you mean making a synthesis of all of them... well, I think there are limits to what you can expect from people who devote their spare time to think out these. And you should also define what means "newb".

If you're asking for a professional, complete and coherent analysis of UI shortcomings and possible solutions, well, then you need to find a friend who's got experience as an UI analyst, and get him to dig the game, so he does it with its own spare time. Or you could make a full-time job offer - what you ask could take easily a couple hundred hours of work - so make it 1,200$, a couple hundred up or down. There are quite a few good sites to link up with freelancers.

I don't get you, really. Are you trying to suppress the discussion on the grounds that people complaining don't have what they should?

Remember, for the purpose of this exercise, all functionality has to be retained. Add whatever you'd like. The entire UI is yours to design. Go for it. I'm seriously interested in what ideas will come forth.

Would you be more specific about this? Do you mean that all of current UI features should be retained?

[Sardaukar]

Well, before WitE we had WitP:AE, where different teams worked on the land, sea and air components, with the result that all three work in completely different ways with no consistency between them.

Those threads that BletchleyGeek is keeping tabs on are excellent and address both the 'information is hidden' and 'buttons buttons everywhere but none I want to press' problem of CM:N. I also wouldn't mind getting a right-click pop-up command menu ala-Close Combat; now that was a game series with a good UI.

Except there was team co-ordinator in WitP:AE. Which still has more user-friendly UI than CMBN has...and is updated in almost daily/weekly bases by guy who doesn't even get paid for it. And this from player who played CMx1 series to death... I just don't understand why BF decided to alienate lot of "fan base" by radical re-design of UI. Very counter-intuitive one too.

[c3k]

My responses embedded in bold within the quoted passage.

Well, you can see a mockup of what the screen layout would be as well as quite detailed textual description of what each new element is meant to do. If you mean making a synthesis of all of them... well, I think there are limits to what you can expect from people who devote their spare time to think out these. And you should also define what means "newb".

I will allow the definition of "newb" to be whatever is desired. I was not the one who brought up the criticism that the UI is not newb-friendly. Define it as you will.

If you're asking for a professional, complete and coherent analysis of UI shortcomings and possible solutions, well, then you need to find a friend who's got experience as an UI analyst, and get him to dig the game, so he does it with its own spare time. Or you could make a full-time job offer - what you ask could take easily a couple hundred hours of work - so make it 1,200$, a couple hundred up or down. There are quite a few good sites to link up with freelancers.

No, I'm not looking for a professional analysis with professional solutions. Nor, frankly, should I make a full-time job offer. This is a bit snide of you. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your purpose in writing the above paragraph. You've put the onus on me, as if I'm demanding some sort of economic sacrifice from those who are so vocally critical of the UI.

I don't get you, really. Are you trying to suppress the discussion on the grounds that people complaining don't have what they should?

Dear God man, are you really that dense, or are you trying to inflame this? Far from SUPPRESSING discussion, I'm actively trying to PROMOTE discussion. However, rather than start (or continue) a bitch-fest, I'd rather have thoughtful contribution. Hopefully BF.C will see some of this and make a change.

What good is a statement that the UI is broken? It is valueless. Would a right-click-centric UI that opens a decision wheel be better? I don't know. If someone has a gripe about the UI, then man up and propose something better. A concrete proposal is far better than a statement to "make it better." What would make it better?

An integrated UI means that any proposal to improve the UI should be part of a concept for the entire UI.

Would you be more specific about this? Do you mean that all of current UI features should be retained?

Gameplay features should be retained. I don't care about the current UI. However, any proposal should still allow me to get ammo, unload from the halftrack, QUICK to a location, TARGET an enemy, PAUSE, FAST to the 3rd floor of a building, then FACE where I want. Etc. Retain all the control/information the game presently has, but package it better than the current UI.

Continuing: There is plenty of room for improvement in the current UI. Endless complaining is worthless. Or, if this is a complaint thread, I'll drop out. Complain away. If, however, this is meant for serious discussion, then trying to craft a UI which INCLUDES all the gameplay functionality presently available, is hard. My goal is to see if there are any good ideas out there. Presenting solutions is far more beneficial than griping. Presenting solutions requires a bit of thought about how to present information and choices to the player.

So, let's see some solutions.

[Alchenar]

Thanks for searching for, and linking to, those threads. However, my original query stands: how would you integrate all these ideas into a newb-friendly UI? And, based on the criticisms raised, how do you make the UI intuitive?

Remember, for the purpose of this exercise, all functionality has to be retained. Add whatever you'd like. The entire UI is yours to design. Go for it. I'm seriously interested in what ideas will come forth.

Ken

I would literally mash together the two mockups in those threads.

This gives me some space in the middle-left of the bottom bar to play with. A better fire support window and interface would be nice, for a start you should select the support unit you want first and then the game should highlight the units capable of calling in and spotting a mission for it.

Internal edit: This is actually major example in which the interface works in a way counter-intuitively to how the player thinks. The player isn't constantly hovering behind his observers looking for opportunities to use them. The player (or I would assert most players') thought process is: 1. Aha! That's a prime target/area for an artillery strike. 2. What assets do I have available? 3. Ok, now who's best positioned to call in this strike?

The game interface forces you to invert stages 2 and 3 unnecessarily as you stumble about trying to work out whether or not it's even possible to strike the area you want, much less with the asset you want to use.

That'll still leave some space which could be used for a number of things. Personally, I wouldn't mind a persistent combat log that would notify you of newly spotted enemies, reinforcements arriving and whether or not an objective has actually been accomplished (yes, magically knowing whether or not a factory complex has been completely cleared is not realistic, but nor is being 'defeated' because you failed to spot the one guy cowering in a distant corner).

e: on the topic of things being more intuitive, there's massive scope for contextual orders. Left-click to select, right-click to order. Simple. I right click on a location and a menu pops up next to my cursor letting me specify the type of movement order (or whether I want to shoot at that location). Right-click on a vehicle, I get the options to embark, acquire etc etc.

Hotkeys usually speed up this functioning in games but they don't in CM:N because of the retarded decision to have keys do different things depending on which command tab is open.

e2: And I try to keep it mature but it blows my mind that someone actually sat down and designed that system and didn't realise how awful it was.

[Vark]

I have no problems with the UI for TAOW and can quite happily play a multi-division game quickly (playing Kursk at the moment). The trouble I have is with the actual game engine extrapolating individual weapons performances to determine said divisional combat.