programming and human factors
by Jeff Atwood
Frets on Fire is an open source clone of Guitar Hero. It's a great idea. Think of all the user-created songs we could play! My excitement quickly faded after I downloaded it and tried it out.
I'll be first in line to champion gameplay over graphics, but the presentation in Frets on Fire is so bare-bones, so rudimentary that it's hard to muster any enthusiasm for the game whatsoever. Even equipped with a nice plastic USB guitar, there's only so much rocking you can do when you're staring at the loose OpenGL equivalent of a completely ASCII interface. It is incredibly primitive.
For comparison, here's a screenshot I captured of Guitar Hero III running on my PC.
These rhythm games are functionally identical. Press some combination of the five colored buttons on the USB plastic guitar and strum in time to the pre-recorded music. It's hardly guitar practice, but it is a fun new way to enjoy the music you already love.
Based on these screenshots, which fake plastic guitar rhythm game would you rather play?
Despite the universe of modding and custom songs possible with Frets on Fire, I'd much rather spend my time hacking new songs into the PC version of Guitar Hero III, even with the additional reverse engineering hurdles. The lesson I take from this is that presentation matters.
Of course, this comparison is grossly unfair to Frets on Fire. It is open source and completely free -- whereas the Mac and PC version of Guitar Hero III costs $79.99 bundled with the guitar. There's a commercial army of artists, developers, and producers behind Guitar Hero III. It's unreasonable to expect Frets on Fire to have the same production values. I'm not exactly going to march over to the SourceForge page and demand my money back or anything. I applaud what they've done.
But playing Frets on Fire makes me feel like a keyboard jockey instead of a rock god. This isn't just a personal deficiency of mine-- it's a presentation problem with real world ramifications. Better presentation would win many converts to the Frets on Fire camp, and woo them away from the alternatives. I think this presentation rule applies to all software. If you want people to get excited about your software, you have to make it look reasonably good, as Joel Spolsky points out:
I learned this lesson as a consultant, when I did a demo of a major web-based project for a client's executive team. The project was almost 100% code complete. We were still waiting for the graphic designer to choose fonts and colors and draw the cool 3-D tabs. In the meantime, we just used plain fonts and black and white, there was a bunch of ugly wasted space on the screen, basically it didn't look very good at all. But 100% of the functionality was there and was doing some pretty amazing stuff.What happened during the demo? The clients spent the entire meeting griping about the graphical appearance of the screen. They weren't even talking about the UI. Just the graphical appearance. "It just doesn't look slick," complained their project manager. That's all they could think about. We couldn't get them to think about the actual functionality. Obviously fixing the graphic design took about one day. It was almost as if they thought they had hired painters.
I'd argue that presentation cuts a little deeper than Joel is insinuating:
''Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like,'' says Steve Jobs, Apple's C.E.O. ''People think it's this veneer -- that the designers are handed this box and told, 'Make it look good!' That's not what we think design is. It's not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.''
Avoid creating software that's beautiful on the inside but ugly on the outside. Be vain. Make something that looks as good as it works. If you pay attention to the presentation of your software, you just may find the rest of the world is a lot more willing to pay attention, too.
Ironically, Frets On Fire started life as a different beast altogether: it won the game division of Assembly 2006. Notably, the demoscene is almost entirely focused on presentation and appearances. So I have no idea why you've chosen FoF to chastize. They almost certainly know this already, and it's rather a victory for open source that the game came with source at all! And if they hadn't, then what can you do? Call the scene dying?
But I'll jump to their defense. If you're playing Guitar Hero, you don't have fucking time to look at some fatass in KISS makeup. I find the background distracts from the playability, especially when the camera pans or zooms. The only time I really notice the presentation is when it distracts me from actually playing the song, or I fail out and watch my avatar hold his head in shame on stage. The last build of FoF I played seriously didn't feature any of these distractions. Of course, I think it also failed to feature hammer-ons -- I should probably re-evaluate it.
This is an example where screenshots don't do justice.
jldugger on December 3, 2007 1:11 AMOf course, if you make something that looks good but has no functionality behind the pretty GUI, the client would be ecstatic and more than happy that you're "well on your way to completion". lol.
Of course truly good software has to have all aspects: functionality, reliability, performance, usability *and* appearance.
AndyB on December 3, 2007 1:37 AMI once spent most of a two hour demo being told repeatedly (and in increasingly heated language) that I had completely misunderstood the needs of the users and my prototype was complete crap. Everything we'd designed so far would have to be scrapped and started over.
The problem?
There were two important pages: one a brief summary of order status, the other an unbelievably long and detailed page crammed full of every detail of the order you could possibly imagine.
My mistake?
The button "view order" took you to the summary page, not the detail one. It needed a second click to go wading in detail.
It took all of about 2 minutes to swap those around when we got back to the office.
But the myth that the design team was terminally incompetent scarred the project for a long time.
MinnieL on December 3, 2007 1:45 AMIn my opinion, the GH3 UI looks way too cluttered.
TraumaPony on December 3, 2007 1:52 AMWe once had a demo almost fall completely apart because our software (not custom, it's sold to many companies) referred to a certain unit of sales as an order. This was completely unacceptable to the potential client. They ranted and raved about how the software was completely unfit for their company. The funny thing was, that we had already been through every feature with them. It was the perfect fit for their company, it was just that one "insignificant" piece of terminology.
After a bit we were able to get them calmed down and back on track. What went a long way towards getting them to listen was the embedded Virtual Earth control. Nothing special, just maps of addresses entered into the system for local shipping information. However, we'd never gotten around to removing the 3d button, and now it's never going away. The 3d birds eye view rendered them all speechless enough to get the meeting back on track.
Presentation indeed.
kettch on December 3, 2007 1:54 AMGH3 looks horrible! Most games look nice these days but aren't as playable as older, far less pretty games. But people are fickle and will go for stuff that looks nicer. That's why low-end so-called `hifi` equipment is covered with flashing lights, buttons etc, whereas proper amps have a power switch and a volume control.
Dave on December 3, 2007 2:03 AMOf course truly good software has to have all aspects: functionality, reliability, performance, usability *and* appearance.
Perhaps, in the same way that personality is more important than looks in dating. It is.
But you have to be able to get people to give you a second look before they can possibly find out how great your personality is!
Jeff Atwood on December 3, 2007 2:05 AMOnce, when developing a web application, I changed the text on the menu links and took it from something that "completely missed the point" to "was just perfect".
Jivlain on December 3, 2007 2:11 AMwhile i agree with you on the main point (make it look hot, etc.), don't bag on fof. it's written in python. python was never really meant to render graphics. it sacrifices some performance to trade in for really easy programming. python reads almost like english, all the time.
but doing the simple trig needed for fof, for every frame, while still running smoothly, is quite an achievement for python as it is.
Try using a les Paul with Marshall amp, or a strat with a wahwah peddle and you'll find that graphics aren't an issue ;0)
Steve on December 3, 2007 2:50 AMActually, I prefer the presentation of Frets on Fire. It's not as slick as Guitar Hero III, and it could definitely be improved, but I feel that the latter screenshot is too cluttered. And it's totally geared to boys/men (what kinda troll is that on the left anyway? :-P).
I'm a woman and I know girls that play guitar and I think they would enjoy playing along their favorite songs (pop / rock or otherwise). If that's the only skin Guitar Hero III provides, than I wouldn't want it...
Aicho on December 3, 2007 2:52 AMJeff,
I'd take your comments with a pinch of salt. For a game, a pure graphical presentation takes more weight than, say, a control application for an industrial gravel works.
The game needs to be _enjoyable_ to use, but the control application needs to be _easy_ to use. Yes, usability and presentation is important here too, but in this case it can involve making the display simpler, less cluttered, and using less graphical elements.
Anyway, who'd want to play a game that was easy to complete?
If I had some batch processing software that was important for a sysadmin to put in a script, I'd want to avoid any graphical UI like the plague - _but_ I'm still doing this to make the software more usable. Just the usability goals are different.
Off-topic remark: Why has the guitar in these games only got five strings?
Ritchie Swann on December 3, 2007 3:05 AMAicho said: I'm a woman and I know girls that play guitar and I think they would enjoy playing along their favorite songs (pop / rock or otherwise). If that's the only skin Guitar Hero III provides, than I wouldn't want it...
There are no girls on the internet. Don't be ridiculous.
A few years back, my clients thought that I did an amazing job with a very crappy UI. I had changed the button colors!
Ritchie, that's a cross between a bass and a lead, so you can play both :)
themasmer on December 3, 2007 3:20 AMFrets on fire is quite nice for the fact that it's free :) I made a small video of it some months ago ( http://blog.cumps.be/party-game-guitar-hero-for-pc/ )
David Cumps on December 3, 2007 3:24 AMHow come free/opensource software gets to hide behind the excuse "We're free so deal with it!" or "We're opensource so why don't you code it!" I'm an end-user I will happily pay $120 for something that looks nice and plays well rather than download some crap software that happens to be free. Also, when I pay for something I know that there's a responsible party that I can address my concerns to. And that this software has a viable future and won't just disappear someday. I'm aware of apps like Firefox that make their money from Google, but they don't have the level of support that I get from evil-doing Microsoft.
The successful opensource/free software companies do well because they don't hide behind these lame excuses. Firefox has ambitiously claimed they will fix any security vuln in "10 fu*king days!" (even though I'm moving away from Firefox due to their security vulns, but their extensions are so damn good).
No users really care about development cycles, language used for development, how slick that one regular expression parsing method is on line 2700, or even that you use a bug tracker (I know, shocking). All end-users want are great useful apps that work. And the apps that look nice probably work well and are easy to use. The look is really a signal to the consumer that you care for your application enough to worry about the complete package not just the code.
dasickis on December 3, 2007 3:43 AM"Anyway, who'd want to play a game that was easy to complete?"
I have no idea what you're saying here. Do you mean this ironically, or are you commenting on how the interface adds fake difficulty, or are you truly claiming that gamers want a challenge first and foremost? Most don't, at least not one that lasts for more than a few seconds -- games like Guitar Hero are different because you can enjoy yourself and get a sense of accomplishment on every skill level, even without "completing" the game.
Be vain. Make something that looks as good as it works.
Unfortunately for FOF, it DOES look as good as it works :(
ryan on December 3, 2007 3:50 AMBad example, i'd prefer fretsOnFire, no doubt.
for GH3 you need a NASA's computer for running it, whereas for FretsOnFire you can play in any average computer.
seiju on December 3, 2007 4:51 AMBack to the "style vs. substance" vein...it is too bad when you present a prototype that is function complete yet is still waiting for the visual geegaws and the customer can't get past that. Equally as bad is the presentation of a beautiful looking prototype that has nothing behind it, the modern equivalent of the first Tucker demonstration (crazy movie/automotive history reference). Typically the customer views the product as "done" since all the pretty stuff is done. I had the luxury of doing a project on a team where one guy (who fancied himself a UI designer, but I digress...) spent more than 3/4's of the project time messing with a "beautiful" prototype and showed it to the customer repeatedly. Some good things came out of those sessions. But management assumed that since the UI was done, the application was done and moved up the development time. He was screwed until he remembered that the rest of us were working on the functional, less pretty vision of the app and he got the opportunity to do his pretty UI attached to our backend.
Mike Shaffer on December 3, 2007 5:20 AMI'm a software developer and have studied enough design to make my projects look passable, but they'll never be beautiful. I realize I need professional help, but have no idea how to find and evaluate designers.
So, where do the great user interface designers hang out? I find it easy to find 'designers' for brochures, advertisements and even to make a pretty website, but hit a dead end when it comes to desktop pc software. Where can I find design talent that has some technical chops too?
Chris on December 3, 2007 5:25 AMUnless you have a multimedia box I can't see Frets on Fire being as much fun as the Guitar Hero series. By the time I've wandered upstairs I could have turned on one of my guitar amps.
Secondly I can see the RIAA coming after sites that host the Frets on Fire files like they have with the Tab sites.
Paul on December 3, 2007 5:26 AM@yossi:
while i agree with you on the main point (make it look hot, etc.),
don't bag on fof. it's written in python. python was never really
meant to render graphics. it sacrifices some performance to trade
in for really easy programming. python reads almost like english,
all the time.
but doing the simple trig needed for fof, for every frame, while
still running smoothly, is quite an achievement for python as it is.
If programming it in python is what makes it look crappy, then it shouldn't have been made in python! Choice of language is not an excuse for poor graphics - nor for anything else. You might as well argue that all the horrible vb or java apps out there are really fantastic, it's just that the language limits them ...
Regards
Fake51
Jeff,
Let me know when you get passed "Through the Fire and Flames" =)
TraumaPony. your statement is dumb, boring, hurtful and offensive. Refrain from repeating that phrase in the future, specially in serious blogs.
ZaidaZadkiel on December 3, 2007 5:45 AMBased on the screenshots, Frets on Fire definitely. Much less cluttered and I can actually see what's happening.
As another commenter remarks: bad example for a good point.
Quantum on December 3, 2007 5:57 AMGreat - do you have any idea how many writers of simple utility apps just read all that and became inspired to create zany skins for themselves using an inflated sense of artistic talent?
;)
izb on December 3, 2007 5:59 AMI've been spending a lot of time studying CSS, Photoshop, and web site design lately. It requires as much effort as learning ASP.NET. The problem I've run into is there isn't one place or book that brings together all the information you need. For example, I found a good technique for creating rounded corners on a blog, stole a basic CSS template from Expression Web, found a JavaScript library for applying drop shadows to block elements, and a style switcher from a CSS book.
Now I'm keeping my eyes peeled for other design ideas like using film strips or photo slides to frame images, etc. A Photoshop Layer Mask makes it easy to swap out images from such a frame. But only someone working full time as a web site designer would have the time to work through all the Photoshop tutorials and learn all the little tricks.
Robert S. Robbins on December 3, 2007 6:03 AMBe sure to hire an UI designer, don't let developers design the UI. (A generalisation, I know, but spare us the horrible interfaces)
Aaron on December 3, 2007 6:32 AMBased on the screenshots (since I've never played either) I think the FoF shot looks better, the GH3 shot looks busy and harder to actually see the part that matters.
Kevin on December 3, 2007 6:38 AMhmm....i like the FoF interface better than the GH3 interface. More is not always better. You have to "keep it real".
mors on December 3, 2007 6:55 AM1. I like the cleaner look of FoF better. But then I'm more a fan of 80s video games than more recent ones.
2. The point about making software look pretty is still valid for many cases, demonstrated by client meetings I've had that are much like what others mentioned above. This is the thing I hate most about professional software development.
rfunk on December 3, 2007 6:57 AMDesign changes the way the user FEELS while using your application. Most users, to include me, don't like to feel like some hacker chuggin away at a DOS prompt, so you should give them a cool, streamlined interface, preferably one that implies depth.
If I were teaching a design class, the first thing I would tell my students is "Don't make your users feel like Kevin Mitnick huddled in some LA apartment. Make them feel like the Tom Cruise in front of the Minority Report touch screen."
Presentation is absolutely my favorite new feature of Office 2007. It seems that Microsoft has finally been pried away from their beloved Battleship Gray.
Mattkins on December 3, 2007 7:16 AMI think that it is a bit unreasonable to expect programmers to also have the necessary skill set to do modern looking 3D game graphics. That's a whole different set of skills that are nearly as hard a programming to master.
And, unfortunately, unlike programmers, very few artists are prepared to volunteer their time for no compensation (which says something about programmers and artists, but I'm not sure what).
This is a continuing problem for the gaming side of the open source community. If you get five good programmers together you can make some great software like a web server or a word processor. But those five programmers, even if they have a great idea, can't make a modern looking game.
If they open source community can't engage artists in the same way as programmers (which I expect they can't, at least not in the numbers required), then open source gaming will never be a significant force.
Bill T on December 3, 2007 7:17 AMAlso, when I pay for something I know that there's a responsible party that I can address my concerns to. And that this software has a viable future and won't just disappear someday
Wow... I like that fairy-tale. Just cause you pay for a piece of "commercial" software does not mean that there is a responsible party behind it. I have received horrible support from commercial developers, and wonderful support from open source developers, and the other way around as well. Software companies can close their doors and kill your support faster than the open-source community sometimes.
No users really care about development cycles, language used for development, how slick that one regular expression parsing method is on line 2700, or even that you use a bug tracker
Well, maybe no one gives a flying flip about language used, but I would like to know that the bugs/undocumented features that I am experiencing are in the process of being fixed, tracked, looked at...
All end-users want are great useful apps that work. And the apps that look nice probably work well and are easy to use.
I have never noticed a correlation between ease of use or bugless software and the "nice look" of the interface. For most applications I would think that, while visual design is important, usability and code correctness are far more important.
CowboyJoe on December 3, 2007 7:52 AMSeriously? GH3's graphics may be decent in a still shot, but is completely needless and distracting when actually played. I'm only focused on the things I'm supposed to be playing, not the stuff around the screen. In fact, motion by the characters actually distracts me and messes me up. I much prefer the simple graphics of frets on fire.
dave foster on December 3, 2007 8:07 AMBill T is exactly right about the difference wrt open source for programmers and graphical artists.
I have this problem also with my own programs, they are also game like and finding people who want to help with the graphics is very difficult.
I have the feeling that artists don't want to be 'locked in' on one single project. They want to work a bit here, then a bit there.
We had a few people helping a bit and then leaving and never hearing from again.
To the people dissing Python, please read up on Python, Pygame and SDL. The graphics library is running in C, so not that much slowdown there. Of course an open source engine is not as sophisticated as a commercial engine!
And to Jeff: if the game is good, the graphics don't matter. When you're pounding away on your keyboard in FoF, do you really look at the graphics next to the frets? Choosing a game based only on screenshots is stupid. I thought the Wii had proven that already.
Also I think your comments on FoF ("incredibly primitive", "ASCII interface") are very demotivational. Somebody is giving away its own hard work for free, a little bit more tact would be nice. Some respect would be nice...
ChrisVB on December 3, 2007 8:07 AMI have to disagree with your oversimplication here, Jeff. The open-source version looks much better.
Mike on December 3, 2007 8:11 AMI haven't looked at the FoF code in detail. However, if I was doing it, I'd write a custom graphics package in C (or C++ or C#), and everything else in Python. Python doesn't have strong built-in graphics but interfaces easily with commercial graphics packages (see wxWindows) or modules written in other languages.
Performance-critical down-to-the-metal type coding is about the only thing I wouldn't use python for these days. Think of it as an efficient, compact, easy-to-write Java.
*steps off python soapbox*
A. Lloyd Flanagan on December 3, 2007 8:24 AMIn the instance of game development I think a similar advice should go out to the game developers out there "Make something that plays as good as it looks". While I concede that graphics are important for an enjoyable game I feel that in many cases less advanced graphics would have been acceptable for improved gameplay.
chrols on December 3, 2007 8:25 AMChrisVB said:
"Also I think your comments on FoF ("incredibly primitive", "ASCII interface") are very demotivational. Somebody is giving away its own hard work for free, a little bit more tact would be nice. Some respect would be nice..."
If I ever get an open source project out there in the "real world", I would hope that reviewers wouldn't pull punches just because it was open source. I'm a professional and value honest feedback.
On the other hand, tact is something I've never been good at. ;) So maybe that's just me.
A. Lloyd Flanagan on December 3, 2007 8:27 AMWhat's that thing in the middle of the guitar hero 3 screen? It's taking up space so I can't see that monster playing guitar, the speakers, the amps, the lights, the thing that says "ROCK!", the lightning, the stars, etc. I think the game might look better if they took that thing of the middle.
Tim on December 3, 2007 8:31 AMAlthough I am still a computer science student, I learned this point through many software demos to non-engineers. People will judge the quality of your software based on the GUI and overall presentation. This struck me as I realized my hard work would probably never be truely appreciated without the help of some art major strumming up amazing work while smoking a doobie.
This is also apparent in the Linux movement. All this talk about Linux being ready for the mainstream has struck up when CompizFusion made its debut in distributions like Ubuntu. Granted CompizFusion is pretty snazzy, it's just eye candy with no real change in the interface.
Jerry on December 3, 2007 8:43 AMSince I'm terrible at rhythm games, I'd rather play the FoF version. The display is much cleaner and therefore would give me a fighting chance. All the prettiness of Guitar Hero just distracts me from the essential part of the display, and thus it's unplayable for me. Unplayable == unfun.
Then again, I have to browse with Flash and animations turned off, because I simply CANNOT read text if there's a moving ad on the page.
Adrian on December 3, 2007 8:59 AMThanks. I will not buy GH3 it looks like crap.
Is that supposed to be a guy from KISS? Looks like GWAR. FoF allows you to use your imagination at least. GH3 you are too preoccupied with the fake "rock" motif to imagine you are a star. So very uncool looking. It looks like a preteen Wrestling fantasy or what a bunch of never been cool nerds think is "rock".
I can see why there is such a problem in the software biz. How can we get our projects right when we think KISS would be "cool" as a Blizard WoW troll?
brian on December 3, 2007 9:11 AMHonestly, I would believe that the concept of modding would cause the triumph of the PC gamer over the Console. All, of the complaints above about the appearance of GH3 could in many ways be fixed through a number of community mods. I believe however, GH3 was not designed to be a moddable game, which is nonsense to me. Ok, so this rant has little to do with the above blog, but more to do with the state of PC gaming, I still find it relevant.
Modding Life on December 3, 2007 9:24 AMI couldn't agree with you more, both on software and Guitar Hero.
I've been in many, many design reviews where I'm looking for comments on layout, rounded corners, font size, whitespace...but people look and go, "What if we made that red?"
In the end, that just tells me they are only interested in colors/visuals (read, branding) rather than the overall layout. Of course, that also tells me they trust me in the layout department, which is great. I can do what I want so long as I meet their eye candy requirements.
Sometimes I worry that what looks good to me will not look good to those that matter. This is a legit worry but I more often just do what I think looks good and find that most people enjoy it as well. I think about me when it comes to looks and about the end users when it comes to usability, readability, and functioning.
On video games, I think the Wii is proving that you don't need to spit shine something to make it fun and enjoyable.
And on Guitar Hero, there's no need to stop at polishing the game itself...to be a true rock god you need to dress up your axe too!
http://www.morningtoast.com/feature/guitarhero/
Morning Toast on December 3, 2007 10:15 AMAnd to all those that claim FoF looks better...Guitar Hero is as much about the atmosphere it creates as it is about banging in time on a plastic guitar. The sounds, the animations, the characters...they all add to the experience of playing.
I can't tell you the last time I went to a rock concert that didn't have lasers, colored lights, sparks, people running around, smoke...this is rock and roll, not Manilow. Guitar Hero is for those people that want to jump off their couch while playing Pearl Jam. Frets is for those just looking for a musical challenge...playing in an orchestra rather than a marching band.
The lack of "chrome" in FoF is not a knock on open-source. Like Jeff mentions, that's like comparing a town militia to an entire army, it's hardly fair and you know who wins that battle.
Morning Toast on December 3, 2007 10:28 AMfor GH3 you need a NASA's computer for running it
Actually, it's just NASA's video card that you need. Definitely don't bother with GH3 for the PC unless you have a relatively new $200-ish video card, or you will be sorry..
This is also apparent in the Linux movement. All this talk about Linux being ready for the mainstream has struck up when CompizFusion made its debut in distributions like Ubuntu. Granted CompizFusion is pretty snazzy, it's just eye candy with no real change in the interface.
I have to admit I had this same reaction when I watched Miguel de Icaza demo Paint.NET running experimentally in Mono under Linux -- I was distracted and impressed by the CompizFusion 3D desktop effects as he worked!
Jeff Atwood on December 3, 2007 10:37 AMIn my mind both of them suck because they don't have volume controls that go up to 11..
David E. on December 3, 2007 10:40 AMDidn't you do any research into FoF? You can mod the thing to have completely different visuals. Someone on the "Fan Forum" made a mod that makes the thing look quite a bit like GH 2. Yes, that's right, it's skinnable.
Link: http://www.fretsonfire.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=11;t=7937
Yeah, it's still not GH with all the jumping particles and what not... but who cares? Personally I think that stuff is very distracting when you're trying to concentrate on a difficult piece.
Jimbo on December 3, 2007 10:43 AMHi Jeff,
As one of the authors of Frets on Fire, I would like to say that while I agree with you in principle about the importance of presentation, I do not think the particular comparison you bring up is a valid example. The minimalist approach to the user interface of Frets on Fire was a conscious choice, and I think it has served us well. This is, of course, a matter of taste, which is why we designed the outlook of the game to be modifiable to anyone's liking.
As for the usage of Python, Frets on Fire was in a way my personal experiment on building a complete game using the language. In retrospect, it was not a perfect choice due to its rather non-straightforward performance characteristics, but the quick time from prototype to production almost makes up for that.
@CowboyJoe:
I agree with your argument but I also believe that free software shouldn't use their cost as an excuse. Also, pay for software generally supports users more than free software (obviously there's exceptions) since they can afford it. It just makes sense if you don't treat your consumers well they won't keep paying for it. Even Microsoft treats their top tier customers exceptionally well.
Also, I shouldn't have focused on the look aspect I meant to relate it to design. But aesthetics plays a part in design because the look provides subtle cues for the user on how to properly interact with the app. Just look at most of Apple's apps and tell me that they're not intuitive. Then look at most Unix/Linux apps and tell me that you don't have to be a developer to understand what's going on. Unix/Linux may have a better code base, but to the end user that doesn't matter.
dasickis on December 3, 2007 10:52 AMThe corrolary to this rule (which is too true) is that don't make your demo look too good either. Management will think its done and expect it to be up and running in a few weeks! Keep in mind that any non-programmer who looks at your wares has no effing idea how it works. The only thing they have any grasp of is the UI.
And I ask you, if you showed a typical 15 yo boy the FoF interface and the GH3 interface which would he want to play? That's all that matters. Good gameplay makes a game great, but appealing UI (to those 15 yo boys) is what makes money.
Matt Lentzner on December 3, 2007 11:07 AMFrom these pictures, Frets on Fire looks a little more friendly and WII-like. I can't decide which I'd rather play from this, certainly some effort have indeed gone in FoF.
ulric on December 3, 2007 12:35 PMObligatory TheDailyWTF link:
http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/The-Cool-Cam.aspx
Anonymous Coward on December 3, 2007 12:43 PMWe had our office Christmas party today (I work for a company that produces music software, and most employees are musicians), and one of the highlights was a big plasma screen with Rock Band (part of the Guitar Hero series) on PS3. It drew a crowd as it has an incredibly polished interface and has that 'wow' factor. I could not envisage a massive crowd sat round a PC running the open source equivalent. No disrespect at all to the makers of FoF, but the appeal of Rock Band/Guitar Hero is the animation, and the whizzes and bangs. It doesn't come across from the static screenshot just how engaging the game is.
Having said all that, there's a horrific bug if you're playing with the drum pads, where you have to play ahead of the beat. It was only the conductors in the company who could actually do it...
whams on December 4, 2007 1:00 AMI love the screen shot of GHIII, man look at that baby go! You got some screaming meany as your side kick or avatar, lighting shooting from your frets, your rock meter is completely pegged out, and man LOOK AT ALL THOSE KICKIN AMPS!!!!!
Then there is FoF, ho hum, sleepy time. Yeah I guess I could go programs some songs, maybe reskin it, maybe even make it LOOK more like the wet dream of a 18 to 20 rock star wanna be.
Craig on December 4, 2007 1:04 AMIt seems a bit unfair to compare a game development company that probably spends more on the "look-n-feel" of guitar hero than all of us combined for an entire decade. Does "frets on fire" compete with "guitar hero"?... absolutely not. it's likely that are trying to nail down the functionality of the game before tackling the infinitely tough task of how to make it visually appealing. Your critique seems a bit like kicking puppies.
JMC on December 4, 2007 1:35 AMBut I like Frets on Fire :'-(
To be honest, I already searched for a flag to switch of the background entirely. I even feel the background an the 2x, 3x, 4x effects distracting. I have to concentrate on those small spheres and cirles ...
But I never played Guitar Hero, so I don't have a real comparison.
Look at me, again I took the opener and didn't comment on the article itself :-P
Hinek on December 4, 2007 1:46 AMIt seems to me that you are presenting your subjective opinion of the games as an objective fact.
First of all, I think that FoF graphics are pretty slick. There are animated backgrounds, stage lights that change with the music, and all kinds of filters and effects to spice up the display. If you think that is a "complete ASCII equivalent" compare it with the other free GH-clone, Freetar: http://www.freetar.net/screenshots.html
It may be that you are too used to Guitar Hero, so that in comparison Frets on Fire seems bland and doesn't appeal to you. However, I can attest that playing FoF is great fun (just like GH) and that when you're playing, the graphics hardly matter at all. I think it's much more important that the game runs smoothly (in this area FoF has problems too) and the songs are nice to hear and interesting to play.
So I'd rather reverse your point: what do the fancier graphics of GH add to the gaming experience? They are probably more entertaining for spectators, but for the player's experience I think the improvement is very small.
Do you remember Tetris? Pretty abstract representation of the game, barely any fancy effects at all (although there were colors and background music). Still, the game in its bareness is great fun, and I don't think it was ever improved by just better graphics (and not for lack of trying!)
Maks Verver on December 4, 2007 2:18 AM@Matt Lentzner
"The corrolary to this rule (which is too true) is that don't make your demo look too good either. Management will think its done and expect it to be up and running in a few weeks!"
Completely true!
I was once in a meeting where the project manager had put together a prototype in powerpoint to get sign off...
They liked it, but then couldn't believe that it'd need all the time and money to get a fully functioning copy - what they'd seen would be good enough...
Eoin on December 4, 2007 2:19 AMI would love if the people claiming that the user interfaces in open source applications is dismal would elaborate on exactly what they find dismal. Either that or link to something they express their viewpoint.
In my own experience open source applications, unless it is some sort of alpha software, the user interface is at least if not better in terms of user friendliness. Though to be honest I have very limited experience with the world of Macintosh and Apple.
But every time I've been forced to work in a MS Windows environment I've found it very frustrating. And it's not just me, a lot of people I know either have switched or is thinking about switching from Windows. My brother, a rather casual computer user, for example recently upgraded to Vista and days afterwards he had it returned and ordered an Apple computer. Considering that his stream of complaints have been replaced by praise I might end up trying it myself someday, but for now I'm perfectly happy with my GNU/Linux machine
I think the main reason that open source games are lacking in the graphical area is as mentioned earlier the lack of artists which are less eager to give away their work.
Presentation is definitely important - the first thing people do is judge a book by its cover - no matter how hard they say they don't. Presentation layer is the attention grabber. However, functionality has to be there after the pretty stuff in order for the customer to stay and not run.
Tom on December 4, 2007 3:14 AMYour critique seems a bit like kicking puppies.
Yes, but it's socially acceptable to kick *ugly* puppies. It's the kicking of cute animals that causes protection movements to form. The ugly animals have to fend for themselves.
Which brings me to...
Jeff Atwood on December 4, 2007 3:32 AMMy 2p worth ...
Just from looking at the screen shots, one thing GH seems to have addressed compared to FoF is the amount of screen realestate you have to look at.
FoF - Top Left, top right, middle and middle bottom
GH - Middle, Middle bottom
GH nearly allows your peripheral vision to see the score and bonuses, FoF you have to look to the top of the screen, taking your focus away from playing the game.
You can see it yourself, just looking at the screen shots - try staring at the frets, then see what the score is on FoF - you completly lose your focus (and I would suspect at certain distances, hit your blind spot)
Tubs on December 4, 2007 3:33 AMTo be fair, open source is often made by programmers who don't have a real production team (and hence no artists). Nobody is stopping a gifted artist from joining the project in the future and polishing it up. It seems to me like the changes to make it look good would be absolutely minimal - if you had an artist to work on them: new background, new score and bonus graphics, new, uh, "dots" graphics (no clue what to call them, the things that tell you what buttons to press). Don't even need that animated virtual guitar player, but if you did, you could likely copy one from any random 3D game with little problems.
J. Stoever on December 4, 2007 4:56 AMSo, where do the great user interface designers hang out? I find it easy to find 'designers' for brochures, advertisements and even to make a pretty website, but hit a dead end when it comes to desktop pc software. Where can I find design talent that has some technical chops too?
It's rather trivial to make a rollover-button on a site. It's less trivial to do this in a programming language; especially if you don't get a nice IDE with it. Besides, great UI designers are rare; if they weren't, crapware and those little applets would look a lot better and have more sensible controls. Then there are a lot of tricks and controls that I'd love to see for certain applications but they simply don't exist in that form, yet.
Usability is not a requirement for your personal blog, forum or what-have-you, and it's not in the list of default filters of Photoshop, so it won't be picked up. Keep in mind that most people learn their tricks on a warezed copy without the manual and the first thing they'll do is make a dozen lens flares. That's not design or illustration. Most people also won't grow out of that. A great UI designer understands both; and usability and design are already big enough chunks without knowing a little bit of development.
As for FoF, the only criticisms I can find are the font (but it's actually worse in GH) and that the particular screen only has a single hue.
It would've been better to make the font stand out more; black stroke around a light-colored or white font would work, and there's enough choice in legible or genre-like typography - slick fonts with a slight chrome sheen for 80's hair metal, slightly psychedelic fonts for the 70's, and stark, eroded fonts for the nu-metal of the 90's.
Yes, GH with its busy background and foreground might be distracting - but that's part of the charm. I had no idea what I did in terms of button-mashing in Tekken but the blue glow plus the immense asskicking my brother received was worth it completely.
Rob Janssen on December 4, 2007 5:08 AMI hardly get time to play games these days and have never had a go on GHIII. It just looks liked a dummed down version of the bop-it guitar to me.
Bloop on December 4, 2007 5:23 AMDuggy wrote:
"The question is an ad for what??"
Well, if you look closely there are clues here.
First, FoF certainly doesn't need any champions and a negative post really isn't going to do anything to negatively affect its popularity. Secondly, revealing that there is an alternative to GH that is free and functionally sound might actually negatively affect GH's popularity. But by the same token FoF is so thoroughly criticized in the post it would apparently deter several people from even trying it. So it seems the post has no purpose at all, correct?
Well, take a look at the link to "Guitar Hero III" that Jeff has included. It's not a link to the game site. It's not a link to a review. It's a link to Amazon. And not only that, it looks like this:
h**p://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000W5UNLY/codinghorror-20
I have to say I don't know what the "codinghorror-20" identifier does, but I can guess. Removing it results in the same page, so it's not a required part of the Uri. So, if nothing else it's an ad for Amazon.
Jimbo on December 4, 2007 5:38 AMYikes, this is a blog entry destined to bring traffic and ad $$$.
IMHO, FoF is an impressive open source project.
1 - Multiplatform (python based)
2 - Has a style of its own (Jurgen!), even if it would need some additional polish.
With FoF, you focus on the song and the controls. I have a xb360 guitar specially for this game.
blkblk on December 4, 2007 6:38 AMJeff,
Your blog is proving itself true with the responses that you've received. It seems to me that most of the posts are about the UI choices that you made in the post than the actual substance of the post. It's as if the old "content is king" mentality of old site development is gradually being replaced by the visual as well. Posters are taking an emotional response (as opposed to an analytical one), which is what a good visual design tries to appeal to.
Yes, it is an emotional response to blindly favor open source. For all of the wonders of open source development, it's still important to appeal to the users that you're developing for.
Just waiting for the next "it's better to be a musician than a Guitar Hero" post, followed by an "open source is better than for profit programming" post. Purists are so refreshing in their predictability.
@ZaidaZadkiel
Just relax.
(also note that TraumaPony posted more than one comment, so it is not clear what you are referring to)
Pelle on December 4, 2007 7:23 AMAs someone already noted, different characteristics importance varies for different types of applications. Graphical presentation is not so important for industry application as for a game. Hoverer, it seems that there is trend of higher expectations of the good looking UI for any type of application. It's just one more way software evolves. I also recently wrote a post on this topic: http://www.vitalygorn.com/blog/post/2007/11/Is-it-time-for-software-developers-to-master-in-graphic-design.aspx
Games like GH3 and FoF are emotion-driven. Whichever makes the gamer feel like a real rock star is the winner. It's the "this-feels-right" factor that determines whether the game appeals to the end-user.
(I have not played both games,and do not intend to.)
techy on December 4, 2007 8:00 AMIt doesn't matter what kind of application it is, the general public will go for the more polished ones. This is true for pretty much anything in life(the opposite sex, home applicances, cars etc), due to human nature for higher aesthetics. I don't think it's because we're neccesarily vain per se. If we weren't "vain," we'd be living in Communist China during the Cultural Revolution era. :)
Jin on December 4, 2007 8:05 AMohoh and before I forget, Kansas kicks ass!
techy on December 4, 2007 8:21 AMI've been in the software / web development world for about a year and a half. The company I work for have made huge leaps in our products and how we deliver them etc. One thing I learned really fast was that unless you are talking to a developer (code jockey, whatever) They don't care about HOW it works.
Anyone who isn't a coder cannot fully appreciate what it can do, and so they focus on what they do understand, which is what they see. It will never matter how awesome your program is; if it looks like crap, they'll be unhappy with it. Granted if it looks like liquid sex they'll not be happy, but they will be much more understanding in any excuses you give as to why the functionality isn't there.
Corey Dutson on December 4, 2007 8:26 AM@Corey Dutson:
Thank you for putting what I meant to say so eloquently. That's what I was trying to get at, but I guess I struck some chords when I made a jab at free/open-source software.
Thanks.
dasickis on December 4, 2007 9:48 AM"or are you truly claiming that gamers want a challenge first and foremost?"
Right. Gamers want immersion not challenge.
Alan on December 4, 2007 11:38 AMAre people still arguing about this? Talking about FoF likes it's trying to "beat" GH in some manner? Obviously the general public will never even sniff FoF, they *buy* *console* games. FoF appeals to the hard-cores, the people who want to edit/import their own songs and possibly those who don't want to pay for GH (or the upgrades necessary to run it on PC). There is no point at all in comparing them, this post was a waste. When you boil it down GH has better graphics and a guitar controller. FoF is free and you can add unlimited songs to it. So take your pick!
Frankly I believe this was an ad disguised as a post because it is one of the most illogically conceived posts this blog has ever had. I was shocked when I read the lambasting that FoF got here, I thought Jeff was a "developer's developer". I guess not if he can't recognize the difference between someone's pet project that has happened to catch on and a full-blown game dev.
Jimbo on December 4, 2007 11:38 AMThe question is an ad for what??
Really I think Jeff just wanted an example and perhaps choose badly. Two mainstream bought games would have made a better example, as would two open source/free games. Showing how just making the UI more appealing can make a 'free' game appear more mainstream and therefore more acceptable to the general public. Clearly there are two different aims between fof and gh just as dwarf fortress isn't trying to be like Civ 4 comparing the two would be pointless.
Duggy on December 4, 2007 12:10 PM@clasickis:
I've used software packages that cost us 80.000 euros per year and when we send in a support request email to a general support address nothing happens. 3 weeks later we get back an email saying, "I'm sorry, I was on holiday"! But this was a very big company with more than 1 support engineer. So why no automatic forwarding of my mail?
On the other hand around the same time, I had a problem with SoapUI, send a mail to the forums, within the hour had an answer and within half a day had an answer exactly right for my problem! It seems there was a bug and 2 days later I had working patch.
And these are not my only experiences like that.
I'll take open source support any day over commercial support!
Why?
Do you want to be supported by some guy who has to work at the helpdesk but rathers wants to program, or by some guy who loves his program so much he is willing to work on it in the evenings and weekends? I'll pick the second one.
person 1: hey, guys... there's an open source clone of GH, it's cool but the presentation is bad...
person 2: really? lemme see. wow, that's cool.. maybe i can add some nice stuff to make it look good... it's open source, eh?
person 3: how's goin dudes? hey is that GH? no? well, it kinda looks bare to me, can i help to spruce it up a bit? really? cool...
person 1: i can help you guys, too... i think we need to add more of this here and some here... and-
THEN, Barney appears....
I'm sorry Jeff, but in this case you MISERABLY failed.
1) FoF is free and its GUI is polished
2) GHIII GUI is too cluttered
3) With FoF yuo are able to load your favorite songs
4) FoF costs 0Eur, GHIII 80Usd
5) FoF is multi-platform (but reading this blog you seem only to care about M$ compatible stuff...)
6) FoF GUI lets you actually perform better than cluttered GHIII GUI
Honestly you don't seen a good gamer.
The good gamer searched for funny games, not good-looking games.
Take as example warow (warsow.net). In your opinion this game should never been born.
Instead, apart being open source and free and multi platform, has been included in some E-Sports leagues. And it ISN'T sposored by any mega-corporation.
Do you know why?
Because the playability is GREAT.
A good video game player has this list to rate a game:
Mandatory:
1) Fun
2) Playability
3) Speed/Responsiveness
---------------------------
Optional:
4) Graphics/GUI
5) Sound
As in real life what really matters for a good experience is the beauty inside.
When you play with friends at FoF/GHIII you don't care about the GUI mate, indeed, the GHIII GUI is poorly designed for multiplay. Have you every multiplayed with both of them? You don't care about the GUI, never, and btw the FoF's GUI lets you play better.
Jeff, I'm ashamed for you. I thought you would have been more impartial and more competent about what you write on your blog.
Emanem on December 5, 2007 1:21 AMI spent most of my spare time from age 8 to 16 learning to play the guitar and these instant gratification things just annoy me.
That said, I agree with the point that presentation is far more important that people think, and the example is a reasonable one. Please stop focusing on the specifics here - Jeff's trying to make a very reasonable point.
Techies start from a data model and then wrap it with some half-assed forms from a generator - I know we do, I've done it myself lots. I learned that this doesn't work because the logical view of the data isn't the user's view. Not listening to their pain and trying to help them get to where they want is arrogance. For example, on a system our users use (and I didn't write) they hate the way it takes forever to open the person details screen and all they ever want is the email address or phone number - a techie generated the user form out from the data model and joined it to the logically correct place. Imagine how much extra effort it would have been to put the phone number and email address on the summary? Hardly any, but it doesn't fit the cod-head approach. I would lay money the coder has never talked to a user or watched one use the system.
The sexy unwritten thing isn't at all new. I worked on many projects in the pre-web days where the client had "bought the powerpoint". Then they kicked us lots because it was all a lie.
Francis Fish on December 5, 2007 3:00 AMI'm sorry Francis but you missed the point of that post.
That posts is 75% a critical review of FoF and a public advertising for GHIII, written not by a professional gamer but someone who would actually gain something selling copies of GHIII.
h**p://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000W5UNLY/codinghorror-20
There is a serious part of the post and is at end.
But for the remaining is definitely mere implicit advertising, masked by a blog.
This is sad, not only because everyone wouldn't want to see any hidden advertising in one of most famous blogs, but most of all because things written against FoF are absolutely false.
Not only wrong but false. Extremely false.
Really have you ever played FoF and GHIII? Well I did (Pc, Xbox360) and honestly the first lets you play better due its EXTREMELY polished GUI, the latter is so clustered you hardly can compare the fun of the first. When you play the hardest songs you don't care about all lights'n'flashes, you want t neat and polished GUI and FoF just offer this.
FoF = just works
GHIII = works but less playable due to clutterness
I know many guys that having Xbox360 bought GHIII for guitar then are playing on Pc at FoF (Linux or Win32 isn't an issue).
Because when you want to have fun you need to have clean graphics and not omg-all-flashes-lights-I-don't-see-anything...
Is like comparing GMail and Hotmail/M$ mail.
This is the point. Why using such a topic about presentation-plays-big-role-too and then using such a false comparison?
Because of
h**p://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000W5UNLY/codinghorror-20
What a sadness...
Jeff, maybe you wanna try VOS also, http://vos.hlwong.com/ it's piano based, simple one. I find it not so bad.
ChRoss on December 5, 2007 6:01 AMI'd like to comment on the "implied" purpose of the article for a second.
It appears most commenters are coming on here and posting about their experiences creating windows forms GUIs and how those are typically not presented well. I realize Jeff himself tried to steer the post into this territory but it's a silly thing to compare this with creating exciting game graphics. Business users != Game players. Different domain, different actors, different expectations. Saying "the presentation needs to be good" is far too general and easy to zig-zag on. Presentation is important. Yeah, duh. I believe he's posted on this multiple times.
But things like this...
"This isn't just a personal deficiency of mine-- it's a presentation problem with real world ramifications. Better presentation would win many converts to the Frets on Fire camp, and woo them away from the alternatives."
... are a little sad to read. Camp? What camp? Alternatives? Last I checked FoF *is* the alternative.
It's become apparent that Jeff has probably completely sold out and he likely hasn't programmed any real pipeline-level 3D graphics in his life. No, I'm not talking about WPF, I'm talking about OpenGL and actually understanding the theory. It's not simple stuff and programming good, smooth graphics is a lot harder than using a tool to do it. Get it working first, make it pretty later is the name of the game, and that is exactly what FoF has done. Oh, and have you ever seen screenshots of "in development" games? Pretty ugly, right? Yeah. You might as well have just posted a big GO TO AMAZON AND BUY THIS link instead.
Jimbo on December 5, 2007 6:09 AMAfter commenting prior and now reading all the comments again in favor of computer-based guitar games, whether it be FoF or GH --- do all of you have a crazy big monitor and/or computer in your living room?
Regardless how the game looks or how well it plays, the last thing I want to do is gather around my computer and squint at my screen. It's a 19" screen, so it's far from small but certainly not the 32" I have in my living room. And if other computer spaces are like mine and those of my friends, it's in the office where there's not a lot of room to move around.
I can't imagine even attempting to play a guitar game without having room to move around, flail, jump, shuffle...all while clearly being able to see the screen of music. And what about multiplayer and spectators?
Video games for spectators
http://www.morningtoast.com/index.php/2007/07/video-games-for-spectators/
Much like the Wii, these guitar games require a complete rethinking of a gaming space. Prior to all these "active" games, all you needed was a crate to sit on and you could play in a closet. Now that we dance, swing, and rock out untethered, we need space. Sweet, sweet space.
Morning Toast on December 5, 2007 9:49 AMThe GH3 Mac/PC affiliate link is there because I always affiliate link any products I'm talking about. There is no special treatment in this post; you can browse my older posts and find the same thing.
As I said in the post, I admire what the Frets on Fire folks have done. I'm not attacking anyone. I am a huge, huge Guitar Hero and Rock Band fan, so I thought I would love FoF, too. I downloaded four huge song packs and I was ready to rock!
Instead, much to my surprise, I found that I could *not* get past the presentation. It's not just the lack of 3D backgrounds and guitarists, but the overall fretboard, the scrolling, the "feel" of the game. It's just.. wrong. I knew FoF was bare-bones, but I didn't appreciate how much of a difference this would make. As others have pointed out, and I tried to point out in the post, I never would have predicted how heavily the presentation colored my interaction with the software.
My hope is that the FoF folks will see this and get motivated to polish the overall feel and presentation. This will *absolutely* make their software more popular!
Jeff Atwood on December 5, 2007 11:24 AMJeff I'm sorry but you still miss the point of our arguments.
If you seriously try to play GHIII and FoF you will notice that the polished FoF GUI will let you play better herder songs.
In multi-player mode then FoF is even better than GHIII.
I played both for a long time.
As I pointed out, in a videogame presentation matters only for screenshots and newbies. Once you start playing what you need is CLEAN and POLISHED GUI because when notes run away you won't have time to look at your 3D alter ego or at the lights'n'stuff.
See? The fact you can't go through 'presentation' doesn't imply that once you play GHIII and want something MORE polished then you switch over FoF and start REALLY playing and stop watching the eye candies.
Again, in many cases people buys only GHIII for the guitar and then play at FoF.
As a gamer I can only say that you failed and this seemed only a partial pre-christmas review. Sooo sad...
And again, FoF is becoming a brand new phenomenon, look at
http://www.google.com/trends?q=Frets+on+firectab=0geo=alldate=allsort=0
not only because it's free but even because the playability is GREAT.
You missed this point Jeff.
I think FoF's presentation is just fine. However, it's stability leaves a lot to be desired. On all systems I have tried it on, crashes are incredibly frequent, and appear at seemingly random points.
Bernard on December 6, 2007 3:58 AMBad programmer technics are sometimes similar to this: "This is my code: redundant, structureless, but fast to write as lightning (my boss is happy) and it works!" I suppose we all agree this is bad, he/she would change his/her ways, doesn't he? (boss too).
Now imagine a world where people judges mainly by appearances. You can try to change it, or you can be a lazy programmer, becuse you notice that going with the flow "sells more".
A future world guided by appearances instead by contents frightens me. Lazy programmers want to be lazier, they believe it's better, but experienced programmers as you see the future, and know that lazy methods will turn into problems tomorrow. If you ask children to choose whether cleaning or not their teeth after eating lollipops, they will prefer "Noooo!". They don't see the future, but you do.
Don't you also see the future when you imagine a world that judges mainly by appearances? I choose fighting my instinct, look 80% inside, 20% outside, and say that Frets on Fire is not *so different* from Guitar Hero III.
oscar on December 6, 2007 4:52 AMOh so true.
Too many programmers overlook that other side of their brain that tells them to hand in something that looks nice instead of only working the functionality.
Look at other software out there. Make yours look pretty too.
Excellent blog, Jeff.
Matt on December 6, 2007 7:27 AMJeff, an FYI:
Next time you pitch a concept using your blog here, you might consider putting a little more polish into the specific appearance of the post, particularly if they include things like languages, video game screenshots, or UI. I think you'll find that people often over-focus on those evocative and easy-to-debate, yet superficial, details of a presentation that distract from the underlying point one's trying to make.
Marsh on December 9, 2007 12:34 PMLOL
Jeff Atwood on December 9, 2007 12:55 PMI agree that aesthetics are of paramount importance, but so is elegance. For example, I would take a well designed ASCII interface over a poorly designed high-res 3D interface any day, even for a game like this. (Note: I play a lot of roguelikes... so I may be somewhat biased.)
Amazing blog by the way!
navaburo on December 11, 2007 10:25 AMMan, I don't know - Amplitude was a kick-ass rythem/music/pattern game, and for me about 1/3 of that appeal was from the fact that you could make your own remixes of songs. Guitar Hero doesn't allow you to do that - I know all the reasons why it wouldn't be an easy feature to implement. But akward as it may be, the option to create your own custom tracks in FOF gives it a huge leg up on Guitar Hero.
Same thing for first person shooters and real time strategy games - Time Splitters might not be the very best FPS for console, but it's one of the ONLY ones I know of that lets you make your own levels WITHOUT any hacking or modding.
Matt on January 11, 2008 9:12 AMi think the best guitar hero clone with the best UI and best graphical design is this
http://www.toniwestbrook.com/shredz64
Ceone on March 13, 2008 5:04 AMThe comments to this entry are closed.
Subscribe in a reader
Subscribe via email
|
|
Traffic Stats |
