I have to agree that rather than dismiss the whole concept of a menu out of hand, you might simply want to identify the weaknesses and advantages of the system first, and maybe work on that before trying to be too inventive and end up confusing the hell out of anyone without the same thought process than you.
For instance look at the interface design of NeverWinter Nights ! I am a strong opponent of the DnD system, but I could not get bored of the beauty and ease of use of the circular menu system (an idea so obvious that you wonder why we had to wait so long...) Combine it with the powerful shortcuts and the non obstrusive windows and you get something that I will not be ashamed to show to a non gamer person.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, I cant help thinking about the RTS genre, with its massive bottom screen interface taking a portion of my screen, a good quarter of which is occupied by stupid buttons to launch commands, half of it is generally occupied by the current unit selected, which for some reason are limited to a number dependant on the size of this "selected units" area. Tell me, who is the fool who design that (that''s a rhetorical question), why hasn''t he been shot, and why on Earth hasnt this been improved YET ?!
anyway
Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !
-----------------------------Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !
quote:Original post by ahw For instance look at the interface design of NeverWinter Nights ! I am a strong opponent of the DnD system, but I could not get bored of the beauty and ease of use of the circular menu system (an idea so obvious that you wonder why we had to wait so long...) Combine it with the powerful shortcuts and the non obstrusive windows and you get something that I will not be ashamed to show to a non gamer person.
I''m afraid I have to disagree--I just could not sort out that blasted ring menu. I made it through the single-player mode as a fighter, and can''t imagine trying to do so as a sorcerer, what with all of the spells to select from...
Of course, this rant is off topic, so I''ll just state that I tend to agree that you can''t really get rid of the basic game menu--and it works, so why bother?
Personally, I'd prefer it if game menus were simple and quick to use - like menus in well-designed non-game applications. In fact, I wouldn't be at all against it if games just used normal window controls for menus and configuration - I hate the moronic configuration systems most games use (so does "back" mean "okay, I'm done here, now save my settings" or "undo the changes I made to about 50 keyboard controls"?). EDIT: and I hate those damn sound effects game menus make when you use them. Ooh, how cute, when I move in these menus it plays the "generic bullet sound effect 1"! I sure won't get tired of it even after hearing it 500 times! EDIT: and why the !¤%!#¤% do I have to watch those ugly ages long logo animations before I get to those poorly designed gimmick menus? [edited by - Painless on September 8, 2003 6:31:08 PM]
[edited by - Painless on September 8, 2003 6:44:17 PM]
I like menus. And I like them to be as clear as possible. Maybe a few sound effects, but no fancy graphics. I don''t want my menu to be a war room (where I might have to turn the camera to get to a menu item). Sometimes these kind of menus are cool, but it should always be possible to use a simple text menu instead. Menus should always allow both mouse & keyboard controls (and maybe a joystick).
The important thing to remember is -- don''t fix what already works. Unless your thing works even better in every way.
Odd the Hermit I hear you man ! I played as a barbarian all the way through as well. But that''s because, as I mention, I absolutely, tottaly and utterly hate the magic system in Dnd (even 3rd edition)... More to the point, with 36 shorcuts to choose from, you really shouldnt have any trouble assigning the most used spells to one of those. That''s what they are for, aint they ?
Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !
-----------------------------Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !
Erkki : I take it you absolutely adored Master of Orion 3 ? Because it seems you were alone on this boat... (not trying to diss you, just making a point, eh?)
-----------------------------Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !
One thing to consider is that as soon as the user clicks on the icon(loads the disk, powers on the machine) to start playing the game, he is playing the game. The interface should always assist him to the fullest degree in the act of playing, and dealing with things not directly playing-related is the realm of the "settings" menu.
Consider the original video games(the first arcade ones, almost all 2600 games). They didn''t waste time on a title screen or menus simply for technical reasons. Your settings were limited to the switches on the machine, all of which were labeled. I don''t think anyone *complained* about interfaces with those games, unless the game control was bad, which is a different subject.
On computers, the keyboard allowed this system of one button=one setting to continue indefinitely, only the button labeling was more limited(an overlay or by showing them on the screen). For a long time the system persisted, and while it was a usable system to anyone who took the time to learn it(even by guessing), the advantages of reducing the number of buttons used became clear fairly quickly.
Later console systems implicitly demanded an even smaller set of "settings" toggles from the games, since they had no switches built in. Through the 16-bit era, games, at minimum, showed the title and "Press Start," and at most demanded navigation through a few menus during play(RPGs and the small number of turn-based strategy games). In between there was usually something like "Start/Continue(or Password)/Settings," and Settings consisted of Mono/Stereo sound, Music/SFX On/Off, button configurations, and maybe a sound test.
For the most part, consoles don''t have a "menu problem." They don''t need many of them to help the player start playing. It''s computer games that have problems...
The increase in point-and-click menus in computer games roughly corresponds with the adoption of point-and-click methods in computing. The problem is, in my opinion, that these menus don''t go very well with 3d games, especially of the FPS kind. You''re suddenly changing from waving around your gun or your sword to moving the cursor; it''s a jarring effect. I think the more effective solution is to go BACKWARDS. When the player opens a menu, especially an in-game one, eliminate the mouse. Show the hotkeys and make the player use them, like the old days.
I don''t think there''s any need for improving menus outside of the context of the game, though. They show the information you need and provide an efficent means of selecting from that information. Not a problem, as long as it''s styled in an equally efficent manner.
Though it would be interesting to have a game that started in a client-generated web page, and browsing to the appropriate link started the game program. But that''s again a gameplay issue. A fantasy game would have no good reason to use that method, even if a sci-fi one would.
quote:Original post by exa_einstein nearly EVERY commercial game today has a menu. (new/save/load/join/host/exit) isn''t it a little boring? We know that it is the most copied idea in industry and we don''t search for something better. ideas? consoles with help system? no menu, just start game immediately without any questions? I search for ideas . please help. thanks.
could you imagine what some games would be like if you had to use just hotkeys instead of the menu''s? A video settings menu is a must if you''re serious about your game. You might think that 1024x768 will run fine on every machine, and it would look great, but you''d be dead wrong. that resolution on my screen (19 inch) looks HORRIBLE. We would seriously need to start using combinations to change settings like alt+ctrl+shift+r changes texture resolution, and i dont know HOW you could change key bindings this way (other than a console, but then a console detracts from the game EVEN MORE than the menu)
with the sheer number of different harware setups, and different input settings players prefer, a menu is really the only way to go. You just need to get a little creative with the menu, dont make it too flashy and take forever to load (fancy animations, sound effects) but maybe give it a theme, like make it look like it''s etched on a concrete wall or something, and maybe a little background music. (small looping file, just ambient noise, not 5 minutes of techno). The buttons I personally like to get feedback from, a light clicking noise and them depressing down is usually fine. Mechwarrior3, half-life, elite force, and starcraft would by examples i would give of a good menu system.
madden 2002 is ok, but takes far too long to load due to the background 3d animation and song, some games like command&conquer: tiberian sun have some menu issues like making it really hard to change keyboard controls, and the menu feel too static, and unresponsive.
Feel is everything in a video game, and im sure everyone here would agree that if a menu is bad, it could annoy the player before they even get into the game, and that would be a bad thing. (i was just helping someone out by testing their game and giving feedback, one of my first things was that i wasted at least 5 minutes in the menu resetting every control before i could even get my guy to move (it was preset with very funky controls, like s,z,x,c for moveing foreward backwards, left and right) If i hadnt been testing it, im sure if i had downloaded it as a demo i would have given up and played something else that took less time to learn, if i want to play a game, i want to relax, not learn 50 million new controls and hotkeys because of a bad or non-existant menu.
