Frankly, there's an issue involving a horrible inferface versus a well laid out structure.
I am asking if it would be better to eliminate the interface, denying the chance to see the icon, except painfully looking on a certain tab....
Or keep the interface, with how one pointed out to have HORRIBLE graphics... possibly making it look even more unprofessional?
Thus... a HORRIBLE game layout, or HORRIBLE graphics? Further, a HUGE reduction in conveniance.
ID:151849
 Jan 2 2009, 5:27 pm
|
|
|
Jan 2 2009, 5:36 pm
|
|
Kaiochao
  |
You could, of course, have decent graphics AND a decent game layout at the same time, and improve on them over time.
|
You could always make a well laid out interface. Personally, I find the best ones to be the ones that tie the interface into the programming in a nice manner. For example, on one screen, you choose your gender. On the next screen, it lays out appearance-related stuff based on what gender you chose. Another thing: swap out menus. Click a button, one pane gets swapped out of a child for another. It really minimizes interface size, look at my RTS for an example of this. The interface has so much stuff crammed into a smaller-than-normal size, and the only real complaint related to it (that hasn't been fixed) is the color scheme.
| |
swap the buttons for commands?
Sounds like a good thing to do. But Theres one factor that makes buttons so alluring: Conveniance. But I will gladly put the extras on menus here out, and even like that notion. | |
That wasn't what I meant.
Ok, let's say you have a menu made of buttons, an output, and a panel full of stats, which are in the form of labels (which is what my game had) and you don't need them all out at once. Instead of placing them all side by side, or in an info control, I created a pane for each one, and a child to hold them. Then I made buttons, which swapped out one pane for another one in the set. | |