someone please elaborate what "Clunky and ugly" even means? i see this mentioned about various games and i wonder what are they talking about.

Well, they state that it's just the same as F3. So that is clunky and ugly in their opinion. The clunky part I agree with.

It means that the UI svcks, and compared to most other UIs for games made primarily for the PC, it does - the PipBoy UI is optimized for the console games and their crappy controllers and low-def screens, not the relatively high pixel resolution (and close-to-youness) of a computer monitor and the mouse and keyboard. Just look at the PipBoy UI from Fallout 3 for exactly what they're talking about - they're basically saying 'it hasn't changed'.

Clearly you love your console, and play Fallout exclusively on it. Let me guess, Xbox 360? :rolleyes:

Kinda funny though, because in Fallout 1, the UI was pretty similar. (at least for skills and such) I will agree that they optimized it for the consoles. but my controller is by no means "crappy" and my $2000 1080p TV is not low-def, thanks. Think before you insult other peoples preferences, please?

The reviewer was either a complete PC really devoted fan, or just has a very different idea of ugly/clunky than I do.

I think the current pip-boy UI is actually pretty convenient (though it could use a little optimization maybe). But to each their own.

Basically the HUD/UI is designed around someone sitting far away from a large low resolution TV. The first thing I do after a fresh installation of Fallout 3 is get a mod for the HUD/UI.

Here are some screens from a popular mod to show how bad the default really is..

Barter menu-
http://ui.darnified.net/wip/F3/barter_menu_darn.JPG

Pip Boy status screen-
http://ui.darnified.net/wip/F3/stats_menu_p1.jpg

Perk selection-
http://ui.darnified.net/wip/F3/lvlup_wip3.jpg

Speech choices-
http://ui.darnified.net/wip/F3/font6_wip1.jpg

EDIT:



A 1920x1080 resolution on a TV thats probably well over twice that size isnt that great you know.

no comprendo

I like the pip-boy.

Doesn't matter, there are always deviants who hate something.

And this guy sounded like a MW2 enthusiast.

I gotta agree. The UI is just too big and takes up too much space.

DarnUI got it perfect. I'll wait for that to be ported over, as I'm sure it will be one of the first mods to be ported over.

Your TV is not low-def, but it was optimized for low-def TVs, because a lot of people do not play on HDTVs. And sorry, but yes, controllers are in fact crappy compared to a mouse-and-keyboard for navigating a user interface/menu system. They have their place, but the mouse-and-keyboard combination is far, far superior to a console controller for navigating a GUI. Also, the Fallout 1 UI was in no way similar, but it also really svcked, especially browsing the inventory and bartering items. For skills and such it wasn't so different, except everything fit on one screen and the text wasn't two inches high.



It was in PC Gamer. He's obviously talking about it from a PC perspective, as is appropriate for his magazine. Not really sure why it was all that ugly, though, unless he meant that in something other than a purely aesthetic sense.

I'm... not seeing that. In Fallout 1/2 the UI was more efficient in relation to character details; all of your important information was displayed on one single character record screen, and you didn't have to go through tabs and sub tabs just to find one small piece of information. The inventory aspect of the UI was equally horrendous though, maybe even worse.

I find this sad, graphics don't make a game. At least for me they don't.

I've seen worse. I think what people were mostly irked about is that the UI was created for using a D-pad and buttons, while things like menus and inventories tend to be manipulated differently using a pointing device like a mouse. Folks on the PC version were annoyed that they got stuck with a UI that was optimized for a different control scheme (a controller) when a mouse-optimized UI would have been a lot easier to use with a mouse.


No offense as I game on PCs and consoles, but 1080p is fairly low-def compared to the resolutions a lot of people use on PCs, and most 360 games actually render in 720p, which is quite low-def in the eyes of a PC gamer. I don't believe that was intended as an insult. Really, though, I think the bigger issue is that most of the time PC gamers are sitting 2' from their screen, so a smaller UI that fits more information into it is preferable. I prefer to have a choice (I can use the mods that MrBigglesworth listed) because I have one of my gaming PCs connected to my TV, so I actually like the console-centric UI sometimes since I'm using a 360 controller with my PC at times.


UI efficiency discussion is not graphics discussion. I think.

The inventory aspect was definitely worse - there was no way to sort your inventory, you could only see something like six objects at once, everything was all in a single category, etc., etc. It just plain svcked. The only part that was better was the text descriptions (which were cut for F3) and possibly the item images (which is more of an aesthetic issue and thus subjective).

EDIT: Also, 1080p really isn't low-def compared to a PC. That's 1920x1080 resolution. My computer monitor displays 1600x900 resolution (and my old monitor displayed 1280x1024, and some display 1600x1200 or higher). 1280x720 is the resolution my laptop displays in, and while it's not as good as my desktop, it isn't really low-res, either. 720x480 (SDTV), on the other hand, is low-def.

So how hard it's to port DarnUI to FNV? And how long would it take?

No 1920x1080 isn't low-def (I know what 1080p is ), but it is low-def compared to the resolutions a lot of PC gamers use, which is exactly what I said. And yes, 1280x720 is fairly low-def, which is the resolution most 360 games are rendered at before they're up-scaled to 1080p for the display.

So what resolution are you using on your PC? Cause I'm at 1080p and it's pretty high def.... (on my PC)
Can I assume you're actually comparing 1080p TV vs PC?

Wow there! 1920x1080 is low-def to a *LOT* of PC gamers?

I can't say much 'cus I still use a 17' inches screen (which IMO I think it's great, not so big, and it fits nice to the distance I am from the screen). But my resolution is 1280x1028 and I really think this is a great resolution.I don't think that many PC gamers uses a resolution that is larger than 1920x1080. Most of them are below this.
And gigantic resolutions cripples the game performance a lot in some cases. Which is why I think 1280x1028 is great.

I'm only using 1920x1200 on my PC...I'm only using one monitor for games at the moment, and it's a 24" that runs at 1920x1200. I have a couple of friends that run games at 2560x1600 on a single monitor, though, and another that uses 3 monitors (don't remember what resolution he uses, but it's stupid big).

When I use my HTPC in my living room I only do 1080p because that's the max resolution of my TV. Even then, though, my TV (and it's a really good TV with my HTPC connected via HDMI) doesn't display things like text nearly as sharply as a computer monitor does at the same resolution...it's really evident when I'm using a web browser or something with black text on a white background. Like I said, most games on the 360 are rendered at 720p and then up-scaled to 1080p, which isn't real 1080p. Anyway, that wasn't my point. My point was simply that on average it's pretty likely that PC users are running higher resolutions than console users, and that it wasn't an insult to console users...just the nature of the different platforms.


Yep. You're acting like I used the word, "most," which I didn't.


I didn't say most weren't...I said a lot weren't. I know quite a few PC gamers and not one of them games at under 1920x1080.


Depends on your video card. My GTX 285 can max most games at 1920x1200, and it's not a new card.

Anyway, we're missing the point here. Anyone want to argue that PC gamers tend to be closer to their screens and running higher resolutions?

Errgh, after re-reading my post in the quotes, I really came off sounding rather conceited "$2000 tv" blah blah. I sincerely apologize for that.

Also, 1920x1080 is STILL pretty high res, even when considering the "average" PC resolutions. 19.10% of steam users use 1280x1024. 18.23% use 1680x1050. (full chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution.) That's still not really higher than a 1080p TV (unless I am missing something, which is quite possible, seeing as I'm pretty deep into a subject I know just basic knowledge about.)

At any rate, that is all semantics, as the truth is, the UI definitely doesn't look as good on the PC. But I will say that to pin the blame on the consoles is a flaw in judgement. The developers chose to make the UI more friendly for controllers, (thus making the controller the favorable control scheme for the current default Fallout UI). But that doesn't matter, because complaining is fruitless, because PC users have a very VERY glaring advantage (which should void all arguments hitherto and henceforth), that is Mods.

No right to complain. lol. Don't like something about the game? theres a mod for that. On consoles, if you don't like something, you have to hope theres a patch, or DLC that fixes/changes/adds it, or wait for a sequel, and hope they fix/add the change.

So any minor squabbles PC gamers have with this game are warranted, but, ultimately, null and void when factoring mods. That is a clear advantage that should surpass any complaints about the retail game, which is seemingly based around the console versions (being .. probably .. the most profitable platforms this day and age.)

TLDR:

I understand the PC gamers issues with the UI, but mods will make it better. If it were the other way around, and they built the game/UI for Keyboard/Mouse, then tried to adapt it for controllers, it would svck for console players, and they would have NO WAY of fixing it. sorry PC gamers, time to take one for the team.

The pip-boy in FO3 as a menu was clunky and ugly. I agree with the clunky part for sure.

Well the reason I'm running at 1920*1080 is because I have a 16*9 monitor, not 16*10. It's also 27" with a max resolution of 1920*1080. I thought I had a pretty decent monitor, but seems I'm wrong. And about the console versions, they are mostly below 720p. Actual resolution is usually in the 600's. You seem to be in a pretty elite group, to not have even one person below 1080p. I'm curious your monitor type.

I don't find the UI clunky by any means on any platform. It is what it is.

No argument here. Like I said, I think it has more to do with the mouse and the fact that PC gamers are usually sitting closer to the display than anything else. I sort of agree with the comment about mods (like I said, I like to play Fallout 3 on my HTPC with a controller sometimes too), but developers also shouldn't depend on the modding community to fix things. The PC UI in FO3 was workable, but it sure would have been nicer if they'd made a slightly different UI for PC users in the first place.

Mods will make the UI smaller and more bearable on a monitor, but they can't make UI navigation more efficient.

I wouldn't say 1080p is low def for a pc gamer. But I know plenty that play in higher resolutions than 1920 x 1080.

See, I was going to add a similar comment to my post. but I kinda overlooked it in favor of my main point. I do think the devs could do some optimization for the PC version, just to make "everyone" happy. Alas, clearly that isn't the case with NV. Then again, who's to say we represent a majority with our take on the PC UI.. maybe a lot of PC gamers like the UI hehe. or at least find it "manageable" .. whatever. At any rate, I'm really glad we could see eye to eye! You are definitely a respectable person. I'm glad we got to have this conversation. I always love polite people who aren't one-sided and closed-minded! it makes debates so much more tolerable!

I try to be respectful and open minded most of the time. Sometimes I can be pretty quick to judge and bitter though. But thats a story for another day

If you don't mind me asking, what console do you use? If it were PS3, I'd like to add you

No, that sounds like a nice monitor. I'm not saying that 1080p is a low resolution, necessarily. I'm just saying that while it sounds like a very high resolution the way "1080p" gets thrown around as the be-all, end-all resolution, many PC gamers use higher resolutions than that. I think my statement is being overly-scrutinized, to be honest.


Most of the PC gamers I know are over 25, into technology at least a little bit, and make decent money, so they have fairly recent hardware. I wouldn't say "elite" so much as "up-to-date."

I use two Dell UltraSharps from a few years ago...24" monitors that run 1920x1200 (16:10 aspect).


It's ok. A mouse-optimized UI could be much, much better for mouse users, but it's not the end of the world.


I have a 360, a Wii, and some older ones. I'd get a PS3 if it weren't made by Sony. One time years ago BMG (owned by Sony) released a bunch of music CDs that were all loaded with a rootkit (nasty copy protection that permanently installed itself on your computer) put on there by Sony, and they screwed up a bunch of PCs...it cost me a LOT of time. I cannot allow myself to give Sony any money ever since then. Alas, no PS3 for me.