View Styles

[ProfessorOak6]

I'd like to know what you all think about particular styles of viewing I see often in roguelikes:

Map View

1) 80x24 tiles on the screen, and 80x20 or so of them are devoted to the 'static' world.  The map doesn't move with the player.  Instead the player moves within the static map.  It is an older style, and you can find secrets easier in this way because of a large blank section on your screen.  Rogue and Nethack use this.

2) Something less than 80x24 for viewing a map that moves instead of the player actually moving.  In this regard, your @ is stationary relative to the screen, while the map moves in reverse style.  Secrets are much harder to find because you never know if you are at the center of the current map or not.  Likewise, maps can be much larger than just 80x21 or so.  Crawl uses this.

Menu View

1) Some amount of stats at the bottom of the screen, taking up entire horizontal lines.  Easier to read out lots of information at once, and maximizes map view, but many different stats listed tend to mush together.

2) Stats are displayed on the left or right side of the monitor, map on the other side.  With a shorter vertical column, many stats can be displayed at once, and does not feel cluttered.  Problems arise though when length of display stats do not fit.  Full sentences are not possible.

Dialogue View

1) One or more horizontal lines, sometimes at the top of the screen, sometimes at the bottom.  Full sentences, and multiple sentences are completely ok, but multiple lines are either broken up with required 'carriage returns', or blocking the map view, or just the line buffer is quickly emptied.

2) Short 'sentences' squeezed into a requisite space on the left or right, beside the menu stats.  Full sentences could take up the entire buffer, but short messages are easily displayed.

What are your thoughts on these systems?  Which are better?  Which are easier to read from?  Are there any alternatives to any of these particular readouts?

I am asking this because I am currently developing a roguelike myself.  I have the map view as 60x24 on the left side of the screen, and a menu as 20x24 on the right side of the screen.  I have no room for horizontal dialogue right now, unless blocking the map view, which I find as a small problem.  So I am just seeing what you all thought about this particular situation   Thank you for any responses

[rust]

The first question is why would you be restricting yourself to a 80x24 window in 2015. I mean, it's fine to choose such size, but only given that you're good with all the consequences it brings. Look at The Ground Gives Way for example, it uses a 92x38 window and its interface manages to look good and work well, but I'm fairly sure the developer didn't think "Hmm, 92x38 window is precisely what I need" before making the game, but instead added various UI elements, stretching the window so that they may fit.
And as for map view, it's more of a gameplay design than UI design question.

[ProfessorOak6]

The first question is why would you be restricting yourself to a 80x24 window in 2015. I mean, it's fine to choose such size, but only given that you're good with all the consequences it brings. Look at The Ground Gives Way for example, it uses a 92x38 window and its interface manages to look good and work well, but I'm fairly sure the developer didn't think "Hmm, 92x38 window is precisely what I need" before making the game, but instead added various UI elements, stretching the window so that they may fit.
And as for map view, it's more of a gameplay design than UI design question.

Well, there are three reasons I choose the classic 80x24:

1) It will STILL run in TTY Linux.  Believe it or not, some people actually care about that sort of thing (as in, me).  I can start up a game of Rogue or Nethack no problems, and it's SUPER fast, with no delay at all that gnome-terminal or xterm sometimes brings.  Plus, it's fullscreen.

2) Others still need it.  I once played a 7DRL that used something like 84x26, and almost all players commented on not being able to even run it.  It shows you the environment most people play in is actually limited.

3) It's classic.  As mentioned before, the older games use this, and do very well.  Even though I have already transferred it over to a more graphical interface in X, the window size at 80x24 is still quite acceptable to my tastes.  Having both options gives the player exactly what they want, all of the time.

Just because it's possible, doesn't mean I SHOULD automatically do it.  As you say The Ground Gives Way uses a different size, all well and fine.  I am not excluding the use of newer technology.  I am personally just wanting to stay within the limits that literally ALL players can use.

*** As a side note, I once downloaded Angband for my Linuxbox.  Started up the program in TTY, and got some REALLY horrible results.  Couldn't figure out why for the longest time, until I tried to run it in X.  Sure enough, it's purely graphical now, and only uses the ASCII characters for posterity's sake.  So I stopped all that business, ran: sudo apt-get install nethack, and the world was much better. ***

Lastly, you are right about the map view being a gameplay design issue.  Thus, why I was asking for opinions

Thank you Rot

[mushroom patch]

My linux tty is about 172x54... unless you're running a raspberry pi on an old CRT TV, there's no way you need a 80x24 terminal format. Is your computer a Dreamcast or sth?

Please stop spreading the impression that Linux is the gimpiest platform in widespread use in the past 25 years. It's only the gimpiest platform in current use.

Angband runs fine on a linux terminal (although, unfortunately, like you, it assumes the user lives in the late eighties on the campus of Kansas state). Just started it on my "TTY Linux" ($ angband -mgcu). Looks okay to me! Same as in that horrid Gnome terminal. When will they finally make a terminal emulator for people who care about performance? ? ? ? ?

Honestly, sometimes this place looks like it's populated by people who run their web browsers through a time machine proxy that shows them only what clueless commenters pretending to be linux users on Slashdot and other tech blogs said 15 years ago. "Duh, I couldn't run your roguelike because my terminal is too small. ~~~ this comment posted with netcat, the one true web browser http://nc110.sourceforge.net/ ~~~"


[I should add, I think this thread is somewhat heartbreaking in that we're treated to someone who has roughly the correct attitude toward roguelikes -- they should run in an actual terminal -- but gets caught up in nonsense about terminal sizes that hasn't been an issue in decades.]

[ProfessorOak6]

My linux tty is about 172x54... unless you're running a raspberry pi on an old CRT TV, there's no way you need a 80x24 terminal format. Is your computer a Dreamcast or sth?

Alright, I must be near and far sighted also.  

So here I am trying to get ideas on how people like their map and menu styles, and I am immediately attacked for my preference of a large fonted 80x24 terminal.  Who cares about the darn size of my terminal besides me? 

I just wanted ideas that others thought were easier and more approachable, but I found two members of the community that were not easy nor approachable.

Forgive me for asking, I'll just program along with whatever I feel is correct, and get yelled at for it later.  Fine job, thanks

If you actually have conceptual ideas behind better looking menus and map viewing, go ahead and post because I'll be listening.  If you want to yell about terminal sizes from the 80's, start another thread please.

[jlund3]

If you actually have conceptual ideas behind better looking menus and map viewing, go ahead and post because I'll be listening.  If you want to yell about terminal sizes from the 80's, start another thread please.

Keep in mind that the reason you are having problems figuring out how to layout your menus and map view is due to the fact that you are constraining yourself to a small terminal size, so the responses about terminal size aren't totally unrelated since the obvious solution to the problem is to drop that constraint.

That said, I too prefer smaller terminal sizes since I do most of my roguelike gaming on a small linux netbook. While this device is certainly not from the 80's the screen size has led me to *not* play certain roguelikes in the past. For example, if I were to try out the previously mentioned The Ground Gives Way, which apparently requires a 92x38 terminal, I would have to reduce the font size to something pretty small to fit all 38 of the rows on screen. More likely, I'll just never play it because I have other awesome games which do run fine on my netbook.

One solution is to take an approach similar to what Angband does with the extra menus and windows it has when run in the terminal. On a large terminal, it displays extra information on the side of the main window (things like inventory, equipment, current monsters in view, etc). When played on a small terminal, those extra things are hidden, but available through an extra key press (ex. you can hit 'i' to make the inventory list appear in the main screen area). Perhaps the best solution to your problem is to simply hide the things which are not crucial to what the player is doing at any particular moment and make the extra info easily available through other means. The trick then becomes determining what information is crucial at any given moment, and what info is important enough to be easily accessible but not needed on the main screen.

[mushroom patch]

My linux tty is about 172x54... unless you're running a raspberry pi on an old CRT TV, there's no way you need a 80x24 terminal format. Is your computer a Dreamcast or sth?

Alright, I must be near and far sighted also.  

So here I am trying to get ideas on how people like their map and menu styles, and I am immediately attacked for my preference of a large fonted 80x24 terminal.  Who cares about the darn size of my terminal besides me? 

*blinks*

An xterm on a vaxstation 3100 available in 1989 could produce terminals considerably bigger than 80x24. It would do so by default, just by maximizing the window. 26 years ago, standard equipment produced bigger terminals than you're talking about by default.

A typical desktop monitor today might have a vertical dimension of 12.8". You, a guy named after a pokemon character, propose here that your old eyes need characters over half an inch tall to read.

If you're trying to write for a smart phone or something, fine, but don't say you need 80x24 on an actual computer.

As for why I post about this: I don't want someone else coming by and getting the impression that what you're talking about is a good idea or accepted practice.

re: netbook guy, this is a reasonable point, but even on a netbook there's no reason to limit the horizontal dimension to 80.

[ProfessorOak6]

Keep in mind that the reason you are having problems figuring out how to layout your menus and map view is due to the fact that you are constraining yourself to a small terminal size, so the responses about terminal size aren't totally unrelated since the obvious solution to the problem is to drop that constraint.

Thank you Jlund, your comments on hiding less important information was good.  Thank you

Perhaps I'm limiting myself, but can anyone think of a smaller font size than 80x24?  Every time I pull up a gnome-terminal, it defaults to 80x24.  The largest fonts available, without additional downloads, for my TTY monitor is 80x24.  That's what I play on, that's what I use, that's what I will continue to develop for.  As I see that size will always work on xterm or someone's larger monitors, I have nothing to worry about, compatibility wise.

Mushroom Patch, I do like large fonts.  And I am named from Pokemon, correct.

[jlund3]

netbook guy, this is a reasonable point, but even on a netbook there's no reason to limit the horizontal dimension to 80.

Fair enough lol. For what its worth, on my netbook, using size 12 Inconsolata font, my maximized terminal size is 102x30. Using size 10 and hiding my panel, I get 127x35. Fonts smaller than that are just annoying.

[mushroom patch]

Mushroom Patch, I do like large fonts.  And I am named from Pokemon, correct.

It's cool. I like the fat crayons.

[ProfessorOak6]

Then I suppose that's about it then.   Thank you everyone, I think I have my answers now.

[Krice]

Let me add that it's possible to write a roguelike using 80x24, but it's always going to be a limited space for everything. The traditional one line for messages and -more- was a result of that, but it's much better to have several lines for messages which pretty much eliminates -more- presses and also need to check out previous messages. If you have lots of stats and complex RPG system it's also going to be difficult to show everything on the main screen. You need good planning on what to show and how to check out rest of stats the easiest way.

[ProfessorOak6]

Very true Krice, thank you   Planning is everything, and putting non-required data into lists under special pop-up menus would help that.  I have been thinking about the -more- for a while, and I have two thoughts on it:

1) A much shorter version of it, but that it can display up to 10 messages at once, verticaly.  Thus, "Orc Attacks" would be great, but "Orc swings his battle axe and hits you squarely on the chest" does not.  This of course is limiting, but it does at least display data quickly and without having to re-reference previous messages with ^P or something.

2) A single line devoted to full sentences.  This won't take up too much space, and it allows for whatever sentence you would like, up to 80 characters.  When you need to move on to the next message, that previous one could be summarized into the shorter one's, because you don't need to know EVERYTHING about it 10 turns later.  Of course, a ^P would be helpful in this case of course. 

And yes, I could go to a larger format for sure, or perhaps have it as the player's option.  The more options the better I say.  Another feature to implement!

Thank you Krice, very much

[mushroom patch]

Thank you very much, Krice. Thank you so very much.

[Omnivore]

The vertical dimension is what constrains your player's FoV.  Modeling the player character's FoV gives you an odd number of required rows and the exact same number of required columns.  Centering the player on the display with 80x24 and a max FoV of 11 leaves one line at the bottom (or top) and 28 columns on each side (+1 extra column).  It may not be traditional, but the player doesn't actually need any larger map view. 

For better appearance, you could restrict the FoV to a maximum of 10 cells, giving you a border separating the map from the text.  Also since the FoV is circular, you have triangular areas at the four corners where you could display some form of information.  It is a bit harder to code since you need to scroll and it will require more bandwidth over remote connections.  Really though I don't believe either is a barrier today.