Why the WinXP user interface??

[sandman2575]

The single biggest obstacle to my purchasing and playing this game is the Windows XP-style user interface. I have to ask -- in 2023, how has this game franchise not moved beyond this?

I really wish the devs had been able to follow the example of Command: Modern Operations. The older iteration of the game (Command: Modern Air and Naval Ops) had a similarly outdated WinXP GUI, and I found it very cumbersome and off-putting. For CMO, the updated GUI is fantastic. It makes a huge difference to the enjoyment of playing the game.

I know it's a matter of limited game development resources, and none of this is intended to disparage the dev team or the (I'm sure) tremendously hard work they put into this game. But I fundamentally don't understand how not updating RTW's GUI wasn't a priority. I vehemently disagree with anyone who says 'oh, it's just cosmetic - the game itself is great.' In so many ways, the GUI is the game experience. It's the very thing that enables you to interact with the game. It needs to draw the player in and do everything possible to facilitate the player's interactions.

Easier said than done? No doubt. Off the top of my head, I can only think of a few wargames that provide a GUI that truly makes the game a pleasure to play. Armored Brigade and Unity of Command (esp UoC2) immediately come to mind. For most wargames, the GUI is merely adequate. And there of plenty of cases in which the GUI becomes an impediment. I was disappointed by the recently released Flashpoint Campaigns: Southern Storm; I felt like I was spending more time wrestling with the UI than playing the game...

In the end, my loss, I guess. It just feels like RTW missed an opportunity here.

[testarossa]

AFAIK it's a one guy dev team. I have RTW and RTW2 and yea UI takes time getting used to.

UA:Dreadnaughts, which is a similar game, have all bells and whistles but runs like crap.

[RFalvo69]

When I evaluate the UI of a game my only question is: “How easy/intuitive is to do the things I’m supposed to do?” In the RTW series my answer is “Very”. The UI can be made with LEGOs for what matters. It’s job is to be functional, not sleek.

The OP mentioned “Command”. I have the latest version and creating a formation with formation keeping (i.e. if the formation turns the platforms maintain the relative positions) still implies knowledge and clicks (Harpoon ANW - with its vintage 1994 UI - is still actually more intuitive). I’m not dissing Command: different game, different inputs. But dissing a UI for how it looks and not how it works shows a dim understanding of what a UI job is.

Sorry, but this is the way I see things.

[RFalvo69]

AFAIK it's a one guy dev team. I have RTW and RTW2 and yea UI takes time getting used to.

UA:Dreadnaughts, which is a similar game, have all bells and whistles but runs like crap.

Exactly. Formally, they are similar games. Factually, the UI of UA:D is just… chaotic. Not the best alternative by far.

[sandman2575]

But dissing a UI for how it looks and not how it works shows a dim understanding of what a UI job is.
Sorry, but this is the way I see things.

You might want to read OP more carefully. Your comment shows a dim understanding of what I actually said:

" I vehemently disagree with anyone who says 'oh, it's just cosmetic - the game itself is great.' In so many ways, the GUI is the game experience. It's the very thing that enables you to interact with the game. It needs to draw the player in and do everything possible to facilitate the player's interactions."

[IslandInland]

I really like the UI of all this series of games including SAI and RJW. The minimalist UI is perfect for these games and nothing more is needed in terms of chrome IMO.

[sandman2575]

I really like the UI of all this series of games including SAI and RJW. The minimalist UI is perfect for these games and nothing more is needed in terms of chrome IMO.

I'm all in favor of a minimalist UI -- in fact, I'd say that a great UI would by definition be minimalist: it provides only what is actually needed and convenient for the player. I'm not at all advocating for chrome or bells and whistles for their own sake.

But minimalist should also be elegant and visually appealing. RTW's UI looks stale and very, very dated, however minimalist it may be. It's using a visual design language and UI conventions that are literally decades old. That in itself makes it obtrusive. It doesn't 'fade into the background'. It's always there confronting you with its ugliness.

[theWombat]

The UI is serviceable, though I would like to be able to futz with the text size and readability a bit, and change the background from stark white, that sort of thing. The one thing that I do think is a bit annoying is the way it handles windows. I would like to be able to have multiple windows open and accessible at the same time, sort of the way Southern Storm does (and be able to use multiple monitors too).

If you could, say, take the strategic map tab and pull that over to another monitor, or even resize all the windows and have them running simultaneously on one monitor, that would be neat. Maybe you can and I haven't found the way to do it; I confess I haven't spent a huge amount of time with the game yet.

[RFalvo69]

But dissing a UI for how it looks and not how it works shows a dim understanding of what a UI job is.
Sorry, but this is the way I see things.

You might want to read OP more carefully. Your comment shows a dim understanding of what I actually said:

The single biggest obstacle to my purchasing and playing this game is the Windows XP-style user interface. I have to ask -- in 2023, how has this game franchise not moved beyond this?


Because it doesn’t need to.

If a second spent in making this UI looking like a supermodel is a second not used for the game proper, then it is a wasted second.

[Simulacra53]

The single biggest obstacle to my purchasing and playing this game is the Windows XP-style user interface. I have to ask -- in 2023, how has this game franchise not moved beyond this?

It just feels like RTW missed an opportunity here.

You’ll probably not get much traction on this forum, at least not from the frequent flyers, but of course you are right.
Also the argument is not about functionality, but about being up to date. Fine if you want absolute minimalist, but even Windows has improved its visual interface. A lot of people will look at the pre-Windows XP era interface and think twice before buying this game. It does not matter how good it is if people are fooled into thinking they are looking at Excel 95.

Even if they keep the core game the same, it would not hurt to update the interface to be more in line with the Windows 7 and higher experience. Nostalgia is mostly an illusion, but we love to fool ourselves and others.

Of course you can believe the echo chamber, but that comes at a cost of potential sales growth.
…and the old guys will sooner or later die out. I feel old, but know a lot of you are a lot older. Not exactly a growth market anymore. So better start listening to the younger generation (sure there will be some young person who’s the exception who will laud this style as the new coming of Christ. Call it retro-chic…

That said I wish the developer(s) all the luck and a successful release of the latest iteration of this game.

[Searry]

You get used to it really quickly. I have played all 3 games and since the first one it has been an easy UI to use.

[WilliamMiller]

The UI/visual design is something we would indeed like to update, and it is a possibility that we have/are looking into.

Thanks!

[salsendardo]

The UI/visual design is something we would indeed like to update, and it is a possibility that we have/are looking into.

Thanks!

Just give us a dark mode and Id be happy.

[SundiataWTF]

But dissing a UI for how it looks and not how it works shows a dim understanding of what a UI job is.
Sorry, but this is the way I see things.

You might want to read OP more carefully. Your comment shows a dim understanding of what I actually said:

The single biggest obstacle to my purchasing and playing this game is the Windows XP-style user interface. I have to ask -- in 2023, how has this game franchise not moved beyond this?


Because it doesn’t need to.

If a second spent in making this UI looking like a supermodel is a second not used for the game proper, then it is a wasted second.

I do understand your point. However, a lot of the grognard set refuses to understand that making "prettier" games would draw more players, which would increase the market, which would make the developers/publishers more money, give gamers more choices of what to buy and play AND make for a more enjoyable game experience because you're not trying to fight through a UI designed 20 years ago. An "old looking" game will not draw many new players to the genre, which will eventually lead to the death of the genre.

[SlapBone]

The UI/visual design is something we would indeed like to update, and it is a possibility that we have/are looking into.

Thanks!

Just give us a dark mode and Id be happy.

Ditto. Even my 3o years old bible software just added dark mode

[RFalvo69]

The single biggest obstacle to my purchasing and playing this game is the Windows XP-style user interface. I have to ask -- in 2023, how has this game franchise not moved beyond this?

It just feels like RTW missed an opportunity here.

You’ll probably not get much traction on this forum, at least not from the frequent flyers, but of course you are right.

You know how big was the executable for Steam & Iron - of which this game is an evolution?

4MB

So everyone said: “Yo! Even in the Win95 era we already had CDs with 650MBs on them! This is a sad game from the late 1980s!” - right?

Well, no. Actually, Steam & Iron went on to win prizes and praise all around - because those 4MB were devoted to packing the most detailed naval warfare game ever made. Today Wargamer is a sad joke, but one can find the review for SAI they published back then. Notice how many characters were needed to properly convey how much content those 4MB had:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151117201 ... ticle/3179

…And for any serious war game, simulation deep and UI practicality always beat looks. Then the Campaign engines for SAI built on the base game and RTW 1-2-3 built on each other. Those looking for looks can always play the upcoming Model Naval Warfare and ditch Command (and Harpoon AANW, which still offers MP over Command).

What is most interesting, however, is how, true, RTW3 can be compared to windows XP - the OS so good and intuitive that neither the “better looking” Windows 2000 nor the even more sleek - God forbids - Windows Vista managed to supplant (to the point that Microsoft moved forward twice the end of technical support). Why? Maybe because XP did what everyone expected - while 2000 and Vista didn’t. Maybe the time spent to make them look better could have been better spent to make them viable. We will never know.

[supswar]

Information is the game. That is given in numbers mostly. I prefer it look like a spreadsheet and let me work(play). And even going a Grand Tactician method couldn't cover this time-frame without tons of work I'd not notice after one play-through. I do agree with a dark-mode being a nice option though.

[GaryChildress]

I've been playing RTW for years and have 1 and 2 and will purchase 3 tonight. I love the interface. It's a good interface. I don't like most modern interfaces because they're not intuitive. When I want to perform a task in a game, I don't enjoy hunting all over the computer screen for some special shiny widget that only the developers can easily identify. IMO contemporary programmers seem far too interested in looks and less interested in people actually figuring out how to play a game. It's like going on Facebook for the first time and trying to figure out how to cancel an account. You can spend hours clicking on all the different icons and links scattered around trying to find the task you want. Gone are the days when one could easily select a drop-down menu to find everything at one's fingertips.

And don't get me started on the Hearts of Iron IV interface.

[sandman2575]

Also the argument is not about functionality, but about being up to date. Fine if you want absolute minimalist, but even Windows has improved its visual interface. A lot of people will look at the pre-Windows XP era interface and think twice before buying this game. It does not matter how good it is if people are fooled into thinking they are looking at Excel 95.

Even if they keep the core game the same, it would not hurt to update the interface to be more in line with the Windows 7 and higher experience. Nostalgia is mostly an illusion, but we love to fool ourselves and others.

Thank you for this @Simulacra53 -- I agree completely. My point is not that RTW3 should have been made 'prettier.' It is that it employs a decades-old UI design and conventions that the world has left behind. This does not do the game any favors, and it certainly does nothing to attract new players to the franchise.

Again, I think what the devs of Command: Modern Ops did serves as a good example of how a WinXP-style UI can be updated successfully. I'm not saying CMO has a perfect UI by any stretch. Nor did they radically overhaul the UI architecture. But there's no question that the updated UI provides a superior experience for the player.

@WilliamMIller -- thank you as well for this: "The UI/visual design is something we would indeed like to update, and it is a possibility that we have/are looking into." That's great to hear.

[theWombat]

A lot of folks are saying essentially the same thing, albeit from different perspectives.

The UI/UX needs to work. Part of "working" is conveying critical information clearly and with a minimum of complexity. Even if the underlying models and data are highly complex, the interface needs to communicate the information that is essential for decision making as directly as possible. People can rightly disagree on whether a given UI/UX satisfies these needs, independent of whether it "looks good." And people can rightly disagree about what looks good or doesn't look good.

Good UI/UX design though is a fairly well established field, and there are some general, universal guidelines for making good interfaces, as well as good middleware too. Of course, a lot depends on the base platform. If you are working within something like Unity or Unreal, your options are a lot more robust than if you are building something on your own. In any event, though, you still have to convey information, often a lot of information, in a way that the user can, well, make good use of it.

I think the current UI/UX for this game is as I said serviceable. All things considered, it works decently enough. A lot of the critique is simply pointing out that it could work better. One thing that modern Windows applications have going for them is the ability to use the built-in functions of a modern GUI. Things like scaling for multiple resolutions and monitor configurations, modal windows, customizable UI/UX elements, integration with other applications, and more. Of course, you can't just wave a magic wand and take a codebase that has evolved over time and abracadabra it into a new thing. And you especially can't do that when your development team consists of a handful of heroically dedicated people and not a massive collection of talent like a AAA studio has on hand.

A game like this with all of its data is a great candidate for modern UI/UX approaches, but it most likely is simply not possible to reengineer everything to do so. Incremental changes and improvements are no doubt being considered, and should be a good way to improve the experience in practical ways that the developer can sustain. And while the argument has been made for decades that "if only wargames looked better, more people would play them," I remain skeptical. While I personally would love better looking wargames using more modern engines and UI/UX approaches, I seriously doubt that any amount of beautification is going to move the needle much on the number of people who are willing to put in the effort to play these sorts of games. Wargaming has never been a mass market hobby, though military themes of course have been wildly popular for ages.