why do rpgs, of all genres, fall for the minimalist ui meme? who actually wants to escape into a world of fantasy, dragons, magic, and text boxes with straight lines on a flat background?
why do rpgs, of all genres, fall for the minimalist ui meme?
why do rpgs, of all genres, fall for the minimalist ui meme? who actually wants to escape into a world of fantasy, dragons, magic, and text boxes with straight lines on a flat background?
Because budgets are limited and it's better to spend your development on time on things that matter more.
>Because budgets are limited and it's better to spend your development on time on things that matter more.
It's less about that and more about following trends and making it "readable". It's also what most UI artists are familiar with since they mostly work outside of games or on phone games/apps.
>Minimalist
Your example looks pretty stylised to me.
Pluck your eyes out
what would you like it to look like moron
draw it in paint
>pretty stylised
pic semi-related
This was a decent UI, stop being a sperg.
>minimalist ui meme
it's a trend and 90% of designers are following 'the current thing' bc it sells better
no dumbasses
it's because its much easier to do a minimalist design for a wide array of screen sizes and resolutions.
back in the day you had BG fixed to 640x480
>it's because its much easier to do a minimalist design for a wide array of screen sizes and resolutions.
The images only need to be larger, which they are anyway.
one of the best ui the genre has to offer
Sure. That's why it happened well after we had different screen resolutions.
Fact is scrolling menushit inventories came with the move to consoles around the original xbox because good mouse driven inventories didn't work out of the box on a controller.
It's a strict dumbing down. If you want a semi-modern example compare the inventories of Witcher 1 (pc title first) with Witcher 2 (multiplat).
I think the hilarious thing in recent years has been developers trying to implement mouse-driven interfaces but with gamepads.
ew
To fit in with the current industry "standards".
I always assumed they all come from the same school of UI design. Also, people generally don't like ornate and too busy interfaces because they distract them aka we're dealing with ADHD morons. Problem is, I doubt such people are attracted to RPGs in the first place so designers are fixing something that isn't an issue in the first place.
one of the most shit ui the genre has to offer
As with most things in life, there's a right way and a wrong way to do this type of design. Aside from autistic stuff like 4X games, RPGs are the genre where a clear and concise display of stats, skills, equipment, etc. greatly aids the overall gameplay so having a UI that provides that information without taking up too much space with embellishments is a definite advantage.
If you compare your example to an ornate mess like with its multiple scroll bars, fold-out menus and reliance on meaningless icons with mouse-over text popups, it's clear that it's much more functional despite arguably looking slightly less pretty.
While not perfect, the IO in your picture is still a pretty good example. It's clear, concise, and gives a decent amount of useful information through graphics and text.
is an example of how to do it wrong. Yeah sure it looks sleek, but it takes up a ton of space for how little information it actually gives.
Because modernity.
The worst UIs of the last decade are the ones that you get lost in. A lot of triple-A did that and still does.
>we're dealing with ADHD morons.
Honestly a lot of modern UIs are terrible for normal people to use.
That's not very good.
It'd do okay if the icon art didn't have grey blobs for each tab and you weren't asking yourself which sword handle is for what or which blueish potion does what.
Do you think characters exist in a loadout void because the devs don't want to pay artists to model and texture something that can't be sold as DLC?
I swear the last thing devs care about these days is anything about the art, including the artistic vision of a project.
>Yeah sure it looks sleek, but it takes up a ton of space for how little information it actually gives.
I assume you're not supposed to give information to the player in ARPGs, else they might see how futile their grinding is or turn off the dudebros who just want to shoot the big guy. Image related is from a game that's a mixture - it tells you just enough information that you feel in control but withholds critical information (some damage types are just shit, enemy level affects their resistances, some enemies ignore damage types and a lot of weapons do trash damage) and lets normies plug and play without thinking (or they use online meta builds to think for them).
Any depiction that fails to add the big honker is a 0/10 and for some reason they made her darker than even modern Egyptians as if she'd be working in the fields under a hot sun every day each year (and get a perfect full body tan at the same time).
>Pharaoh
>Jew
Anon...
>Honestly a lot of modern UIs are terrible for normal people to use.
Not necessarily wrong, but it's not like everything should be easy to jump in and intuitively understand. You gotta learn some basics.
Yeah don't worry I'm not saying everything should be like a tablet app or as coddling as image related.
It took a while to get used to the horizontal progression table but it's not really better than old style vertical progression tables.
1. This is not minimalist UI you moron
2. It looks good, the frick is ur problem?
Post NWN interface next time if u want to see something vomit inducing
>Post NWN interface next time if u want to see something vomit inducing
What's wrong? You afraid of CIRCLES, coward?
I dont even mind the circles, its the fact that the entire thing looks like a placeholder before you actually put the real UI in
Its the modern culture, everything is minimalist and simple.
I hate it too, completely immersion breaking in an archaic medieval fantasy land
We need to go back
that character screen is one of the shittiest menus in all of gaming. always hated how you couldn't see what each ailment does. i guess you're just supposed to have a guide nearby or alt tab to check the wiki or something.
Manual, anon. It's called a manual.
it's called shit design.
Frick you Black person.
You are objectively a troony.
this is objectively terrible
looks like shit
I think the UI looks fine, but in general I think RPGs have too much UI. In the 90s it was common during a short period to actually reduce the UI to an absolute minimum and use the game world itself to communicate with the player. I think this approach is generally more immersive and should be attempted in games again. It's a visual medium, we don't need long tables to express things that can be done visually. A player will notice that a weapon is better if it looks shinier and does more damage. Of course relying on look and feel for communication would also drive developers away from those MMOish +0.05% increments but instead force them to have noticeably discrete steps and less procedurally generated loot rather than deliberately designed content with meaning and purpose in the virtual world. No need to put a purple name hover over a character that is stronger than you, simply have him kill the player in two or three hits and he'll notice. Or give him expensive gear to make the player be wary.
Diegetic or potentially Spatial UI has a place, but should not replace traditional or meta UI entirely.
Push too far and you have to rely on dogshit things like
>fps game
>health gets lower
>screen gets more desaturated and there's more red jam all over your screen the lower you health gets
>Push too far and you have to rely on dogshit things like
That's a bad implementation but not a refutation of the concept. In the same sense you could make a claim that UI is bad due to the fact that cluttered UIs exist. But my argument is more fundamental. In a genre as heavily focussed on immersion as RPGs, it would be a good design choice to limit meta-information.
Diegetic UI has a place, but should never be done if it results negatively in gameplay. "Immersion" is less important than clarity and playability.
>should never be done if it results negatively in gameplay
That can be said about literally any design choice.
>"Immersion" is less important than clarity
That heavily depends on the game. Deliberate obfuscation is at times a beneficial design feature to have the player find out things on his own and keep his attention within the world of the game rather than rely on some meta-game UI element.
>and playability
Clarity is not tied to playability though. A game can be deliberately unclear about certain things to the uninitiated player and still be playable and greatly enjoyable.
>That heavily depends on the game
We're strictly talking UI here.
If you prioritize having no UI or only having diegetic UI over playability and clarity, you actively make the choice for biased reasons to make the game play worse because you're adamant about sticking to a "no HUD" approach.
"No HUD" is a terrible design goal to have. "Immersion" has also nothing at all to do with having diegetic UI or not, this is something most people completely and utterly fail to comprehend. That's not how the human mind works.
>Clarity is not tied to playability though.
Yes it is. If say it's important to know how much health you have, yet as a dev you're so blindlingly devoted to this idea of "no HUD" that you choose to make teh game play worse for this misguided and wrong idea that it somehow increases immersion, you're an objectively terrible designer. You're incapable of emotionally detaching yourself and prioritizing the player experience of your own biases.
>make the game play worse
Again: obfuscating information does not mean making the game play worse. By not having a quest compass that points you in the direction you have to go you're prioritising immersion over clarity. By not putting a big marker over quest givers you're prioritising immersion over clarity. By not telling the player beforehand what the consequences of certain choices are you're prioritising immersion over clarity. By not putting a mini-map in the game but forcing the player to buy an in-game map or make his own, you're prioritising immersion over clarity. Yet all these choices can - and historically have - been made with with great success.
>"Immersion" has also nothing at all to do with having diegetic UI or not
It is very much tied to UI, since when your field of view is cluttered with text and numbers, when your player doesn't navigate the actual world of the game but is focussed on a mini-map in the top right corner, when he doesn't actually read or listen to what npcs have to say because he can be sure that there is pointer to point him in the right direction, then it has quite a lot to do with UI.
>If say it's important to know how much health you have
It heavily depends on the type of game you make. When I make a game where you die in one hit, then it's not important to know how much health you have because you already know by the fact that you are still alive, proving my point that there are ways to convey information to the player by different means than bombarding him with UI. That being said - I by no means hold the opinion that you're not allowed to do any UI at all; but in my opinion designers should look back at the past where people tried to be more cautious with UI rather than considering it a necessary element of communication - as you apparently do since you can't even envision the idea of doing things by different means apparently.
>Again: obfuscating information does not mean making the game play worse.
Yes it does.
I'm not talking about when a level and game is so poorly designed in terms of guidance, orientation, micro/meso/macro landmarks, encounters, etc. in-world that it necessitates some UI breadcrumb elements or arrows.
There is no actual benefit to going for dietgetic. If the information is important and relevant you should give it to the player. Not giving it to them here results in worse UX (which is not about 'accessibility' or making things easier, which too many people think). Diegetic can be a neat addition, but should not be prioritized if it leads to worse playability.
You're clearly out of your depth on this subject, but that's hardly surprising.
>It is very much tied to UI
Factually and scientifically wrong. You just cement that you pull your ideas from personal guesswork.
People constantly get incredibly immersed in games littered with non-diegetic UI. "Immersion" is not what you think it is, nor does it result from what you think it does. People can get 100% immersed in MMOs, MOBAs, etc. that have a lot of non-diegetic UI. Yet people constantly fail to get immersed in games with minimal UI or only diegetic one. Because it's not tied to UI. This is only an ignorant superficial assumption players love to make, as with tons of other things they're clueless about.
>It heavily depends on the type of game you make
I'm literally telling you over and over that if some sort of info is important to the player and you don't give it or only give them a vague idea of it, you factually facilitate worse playablity. No buts or ifs. You actively made that choice for a biaed non-player focused reason.
But as I said, you don't have the relevant knowledge or experience to discuss this subject and I'm not in the mood to educate someone stubborn and ignorant.
>There is no actual benefit to going for dietgetic.
There is, for the given reasons: it keeps the player immersed in the game world rather than keep his attention elsewhere.
>If the information is important and relevant you should give it to the player.
Yes, but how the information is given is important too. And if the form comes at the cost of immersion, then it may not be the best choice for an RPG.
>should not be prioritized if it leads to worse playability
A meaningless statement that is true for literally any design decision.
>You're clearly out of your depth on this subject
To me it seems more like you're unable to make a convincing argument.
>People can get 100% immersed in MMOs, MOBAs, etc. that have a lot of non-diegetic UI.
The fact alone that you would cite the worst genres in existence, with the ugliest UIs ever invented to back an argument on how RPGs should be designed sums up why you should not be talking about this. Unless you're not RPing (in which case I would argue it's not the game itself that is immersive to people but the meta game taking place in the chat log) neither MMOs nor MOBAs are 'immersive' in the same sense as RPGs are. People get 'focussed' on MMOs to avoid getting wiped and miss out on loot, but they're rarely immersed in the sense of taking their game-world seriously. And when it comes to MOBAs it's even worse. Immersive would be the very last thing that comes to mind when you think of maps that don't even try to hide that they're nodal graphs, generic towers, generic castles, generic tiny creatures to bring them down, huge super heroes in-between controlled by players... - certainly, people are kept busy by these games, and due to their fast pace the horrid UIs might as well be a necessity from a functional perspective. But RPGs need not to feature the same kind of gameplay where UI like this becomes a necessity; they can slow down the pace, they can afford to convey information differently and not always explicitly.
>Unless you're not RPing
*Unless you're RPing
>if some sort of info is important to the player and you don't give it or only give them a vague idea of it, you factually facilitate worse playablity
Again: I'm not proposing to outright hide information from the player, but to use a more intuitive form of communication. And if your gameplay heavily relies on big numbers popping up, on quest compasses, on mini-maps, on holding the player's hand in the most visually insulting way possible - then maybe your base game design isn't particular good and you should overthink that approach and whether it's suited for RPG design rather than try to fix it by cluttering your screen.
>I'm not in the mood to educate someone stubborn and ignorant
It's not like your mood is the decisive factor here, as you're clearly not in the position to educate anyone. You have no idea what you're talking about - most likely due to not playing enough RPGs.
>a more intuitive form of communication
What's more intuitive? Hovering over a piece of armor and it giving you "Armor: 5" and comparing it to another that says "Armor: 10" or hovering over it and it says: "Protection: Minimal" vs. "Protection: Slight"?
Obfuscating the mechanics of an RPG isn't immersion-breaking, it's fricking annoying.
>What's more intuitive? Hovering over a piece of armor and it giving you "Armor: 5"
There is no 'intuition' in reading a numerical value that tells you explicitly how this new piece of armour is better or worse than what you're currently wearing - not just taking out all relation to the actual game world but also revealing to the player how the system dumbs down a complex matter to a simple metric.
The more you mention the more I'm getting an idea of how necessary changes like this are to get horribly dumb ideas our of the heads of designers who apparently can only think in RPG terms and have completely lost any relation to the real world.
>hovering over it and it says: "Protection: Minimal" vs. "Protection: Slight"?
That's precisely not what I'm talking about. That could be terms that NPCs could be using when describing armour, but why have these terms at all pop up when the type of armour, the design of armour, etc. could speak for itself? Do you really need a number to tell you that plate armour is more protective than gambeson? And even if you do, you could simply let the player find out on his own by 'seeing' that the guys in heavier armour are more resistant towards being hit. As I said earlier: this requires broader, more visceral categories rather than MMOish loot inflation, where every battle a new item is dropped that is 0.05% better than what you had before, where you actually 'need' the number to tell you that something is happening at all. No, putting on an armour of a different category or of much higher quality indicated by price, looks, etc. should 'feel' different to the player by results. If it doesn't feel different then your design is not immersive.
You're not talking about making games better, only making them fit your irrational view and preferences.
You miight've well have said that all Ui should be blue and it would be just as relevant.
Not to mention that I'm not even completely opposed to giving the player insight into numbers, but why not hide it behind expertise from a sage or experienced blacksmith whom you can pay to estimate the quality of your gear (which you might be able to do yourself as a player once you're past a certain level in a certain skill). Why show the player enchantments rather than requiring him to pay a wizard to figure it out or doing it on his own through some kind of ritual? If you need to rely on the latter too often where it gets annoying, the problem is not the mechanic but that you have too many magic items in your game. Consider Gothic 1 or 2 - is it really necessary for them to attach numerical values to the armours they have? They have a clear progression system, which already tells you which armour is better by the fact that the later ones are worn by those of higher rank and thus surpass the former in most aspects. Or consider the Souls series - does it really need the numbers? The numbers mean very little, since what is much more important is how the weapon feels, what its animation set is, and how much damage it does in practice when employed against certain enemies. The values themselves tell you only little. Certainly, there is some information which the player might need, e.g. how the weapon scales, but even that works more in broad categories than small increments and could be conveyed in a more intuitive manner.
my guy, you would have liked UO's approach to all this, but I must confess - I immediately went to see the actual real stats on UO stratics. Some of us just have to know the real values.
I have played UO. It depends on the game of course, for some it's necessary to expose numerical values to the player, but for others it's more atmospheric to obfuscate them. e.g. see my Gothic example where it doesn't really make a difference. Or in a historical game where you only have very general categories of armour and weapons. Exposing the player to the number doesn't make much of a difference, people didn't have them historically either, yet they managed quite fine to find out which weapons were good for which purpose. And the player can be taught these things easily, either by having an NPC literally tell him or by experiencing it first-hand.
>You're not talking about making games better
I've explained to you precisely how it improves immersion: it keeps the player's attention in the game world rather than a meta-game element. For the same reason it's better to have NPCs describe the way to locations to you or rely on static in-game maps (that may not be drawn to scale or inaccurate) rather than rely on UI mini-maps. Again: this is not true for any game. Like when you're playing a game like Diablo, where you're only there to farm monsters for items, then immersion is already out of the window, but a game like Gothic is improved by the fact that you have to 'buy' or 'find' a map to navigate the world and that you don't have access to it from the very beginning.
>I've explained to you precisely how it improves immersion
And your understanding of immersion is wrong, which makes you inherently wrong, along with any flawed reasoning that followed.
You're completely and utterly wrong if you think removing something also removes someone's attention to it. If at any point they start thinking about said element or piece of information, like how much health they have or some such, then their attention is not "in the game world".
This gets even worse if they feel that the information is lacking, because that causes annoyone, which further pulls them out and distracts.
And the idea of describing how to reach something being better than pointing it out is wrong, but also entirely separare from this. Especially since this relates to quest, level and world design now.
You're completely out of your element.
>removing something also removes someone's attention to it
Again, you're only showing that you're not an attentive reader. Game design needs to accommodate your UI decisions. Getting rid of a quest compass when the game does not provide you with the vital information you need by different means is obviously bad game design.
But my point is: design your game so you don't need ugly UI overlays and bombard the player with unnecessary information that you could convey in a more intuitive manner.
>If at any point they start thinking about said element or piece of information, like how much health they have or some such, then their attention is not "in the game world".
The health of your avatar is a property of the game world.
>This gets even worse if they feel that the information is lacking, because that causes annoyone, which further pulls them out and distracts.
The only thing you're proving is that your mind has been poisoned to the point where you can't even imagine communicating with the player in different ways than ugly UI. If your game requires for the player to see a quest compass or a path to the location he's supposed to go next, little markers over the heads of people who give him quests, numbers popping up when someone is hit, colourful markers warning him that an enemy is above his level, etc. etc. - then your game is not 'designed' to be immersive. Not every game needs to be immersive. If you want to design a MOBA or an MMO, then that might be the way to go. But for an RPG, especially a more grounded, realistic RPG, possibly set in a historical setting, it may not be the best design choice to overload the player with numerical values and UI overlays, which people who historically lived in these settings would not have had or seen, and rather rely on more intuitive ways of communication - and I've elaborated on these in detail, so read the previous posts.
>design your game so you don't need ugly UI overlays and bombard the player with unnecessary information that you could convey in a more intuitive manner.
Removal of all UI (be it spatial, diegetic, non-diegetic or meta) isn't optimal, which is what you don't seem to grasp. It's an approach you could take, but not some ideal to strive towards.
Removing UI doesn't make something more intuitive, in fact it almost always results in it being less intuitive and requiring more mental load from the player, which distracts them.
>The health of your avatar is a property of the game world.
This statement is supposed to mean something? You didn't contradict anything I said.
>The only thing you're proving is that your mind has been poisoned
I'm speaking from study into cognitive science, UX, system design, UI design and professional dev experience. I'm factually telling you how things work. How the human mind works.
This is why I said you're out of your element. You fundamentally do not possess the necessary knowledge for this discussion.
Like right now you're assuming I'm making baseless assumptions based on a personal biased player experience, but that is precisley what you're doing, yet since you lack self-awareness on top of your ignorance you fail to see it. Every single post you make is seeping with cognitive biases.
I don't have the patience to educate someone devoid of self-awareness for free, spending hours for absolutely no gain.
So if you want to ignore everything I tell you, then go ahead and live with your ignorance.
Yoru "arguments" are the same armchair ones players made 20 years ago and were just as wrong about them then.
Try again when you've actually studied this topic. I have no patience for the ignorant.
>Removal of all UI (be it spatial, diegetic, non-diegetic or meta) isn't optimal, which is what you don't seem to grasp. It's an approach you could take, but not some ideal to strive towards.
Again: it depends on the type of game you're developing. Not every game needs UI, not every game needs a lot of UI. Often times, good design decisions can make a game more immersive by reducing UI, having the game-world itself communicate with the player rather than relying on colourful screen overlays.
>Removing UI doesn't make something more intuitive, in fact it almost always results in it being less intuitive and requiring more mental load from the player, which distracts them.
This is the part where you fail to understand that this heavily depends on the game. Hiding information from the player that he constantly needs - without providing him with a substitute can be a frustrating experience but it can also improve immersion. Think of an FPS where the player is not shown an ammo counter but is forced to count bullets to know how many he has left or when to reload - at first it will be cumbersome, but in time he will learn to adapt and learn an actual skill along the way. By not having a dynamic mini-map which shows player location and surroundings the player might be at risk of getting lost - and initially this might happen. But ultimately, he will adapt, remember the game world he is navigating and its land marks (obviously the game world can't be too generically looking), and find his way that way, and he will remember the world much more vividly than he would if most of his attention while exploring would be focussed on a tiny screen overlay section at the top right of his screen. By not having an arrow point the way of where to go the player might be forced to actually read the dialogue of NPCs and derive information on his own rather than skip it and rely on the UI to do the thinking, forcing him to actually engage with what he is being told.
Instead of making numbers go up in tiny increments, you could have larger, discrete steps in skill, unlocked from trainers, which physically change the movement set of characters to represent their weapon skill rather than reduce something that in a visual medium could be shown on screen to numbers on a UI sheet. Again: not all of this is ideal for any game, but to deny that any of this could improve some games and make them them a more immersive experience simply shows a complete lack of experience with video games in general - especially since none of what I say is new or hasn't been employed with success in some games.
>I'm speaking from study into cognitive science, UX, system design, UI design and professional dev experience. I'm factually telling you how things work. How the human mind works.
You're speaking from the position of a eunuch who claims to have great theoretical knowledge on "how things are supposed to be done" but you clearly haven't played a lot of games, for otherwise you would be aware that reality contradicts what you believe to be truth. If you had actual knowledge on the subject you'd be able to make a convincing argument of reason and back it up with examples.
>I don't have the patience to educate someone devoid of self-awareness for free, spending hours for absolutely no gain.
You've already spent hours replying to this thread, so it's a little too late for that. Not that you've said anything of note.
>Especially since this relates to quest, level and world design now.
You can't separate one from the other - the UI needs to fit the game, and if you read my previous posts, you'd realise that I've been telling you that exact thing from the very beginning.
>You're completely out of your element.
Repeating that doesn't make it more plausible when you obviously lack the ability to make convincing arguments backing your point (I don't even know if you have a point at this stage, since you're not actually saying much).
>You can't separate one from the other
You're clinically moronic. Not only do you not understand what was said and how they relate, you then prattle on about something utterly banal or wrong.
Even your basic understanding of what "UI" is, is wrong.
Over half of what you're rambling about that you claim relates to UI, has nothing to do with UI.
All you're doing is rambling and shitposting.
You have utterly failed to prove why your biased idea of "no UI" is objectively better.
You have failed to prove why "no UI" is more "immersive".
You have failed at every single thing you attempted in this thread.
All you've done is make baseless ignorant biased assumptions and play it off as some "truth".
Immersion has nothing to do with how much or little non-digetic UI (or UI at all for that matter) you have.
At best you're trying to peddle the idea that holistic diegetic narrative guidance and orientation is what games should strive for. Which many intentionally do and many intentionally don't for very good reasons that all depends on PEG and context. But this once again has absolutely nothing to do with immersion or the idea of not having UI.
You can make something extremely handholdy with no UI at all and you can make something very immersive with a lot of non-diegetic UI.
In your delusion and ignorance you might think you're making some good coherent point, but so far you've done jack shit. There's effectively nothing to refute since you've said "nothing". You've only flaunted your ignorance.
>You have utterly failed to prove why your biased idea of "no UI" is objectively better.
>You have failed to prove why "no UI" is more "immersive".
First of all, "no UI" is a misrepresentation of my position, which from the very beginning has been 'reduction of UI'; again proving that you're not an attentive reader or arguing against a strawman position.
Second of all, when it comes to replacing UI with more intuitive means of communication I've given you plenty of examples. See
.
>games should strive for
Again: this depends on the game. For an RPG that attempts to be immersive it is however a good direction to take.
>You can make something extremely handholdy with no UI at all and you can make something very immersive with a lot of non-diegetic UI.
There is an inherently non-immersive property to UI because UI is not experienced by people inhabiting the real world, in particular real people inhabiting medieval worlds. And this is a fundamental truth.
Best posts.
Scifi settings could offer the opposite though, use UI immersively rather than accessibility/design crutch, and crank the difficulty to match (e.g. NPCs can have all that "UI" too). They already do this in some games where e.g. the minimap is a tech purchase.
westsois don't have a creative bone in their bodies and shouldn't be allowed to make rpgs.
Aren't jRPG UIs made up of a bunch of text and menus and more text, tho?
>Titus Pullo
>Lucius Vorenus
My prefectus.
you did mac on the caramel tiddies, right?
Good lord
Do
It
For
Her
Caramel
Pussy
>killed Pharaoh because he was a huge cuck
>killed the b***h because she seemed unfit to rule/best waifu Julia told me to beware of her
>got best ending overall except Julia ended up cucking me
Still in awe at how good this game was, made me fall in love with the genre again
should've gotten the caramel pussy, man
no one says you can't have more than one
yeah, improved on expedition vikings
I mean, Julia specifically has a conversation event where she directly addresses you and tells you to avoid refuse Cleo's flirting because there's something suspicious behind it and it could be dangerous
Considering she had been 100% right in almost every situation before that moment, I decided to trust her
Also I had romanced her like 20 mins before this so I was kinda feeling bad for her, she's just some 2edgy4u autist
I really liked Conquistador as well, mostly because of the overall setting; the game itself was somewhat subpar and feels very dated
Vikings I just couldn't get into: I find the setting to be utterly uninteresting and after all the qol changes that Rome has, it feels bad to go back
Currently itching for more similar games, but none really come close to this kind of combat it seems (grid-based/no magic/mostly melee/party customization)
Julia was just jelly.
For me, Vikings was about combat and fricking over everyone.
Pretty sure she wasn't anywhere near this juicy
artistic historical license
She wasn't anywhere near that swarthy either.
Irl Cleopatra was average at best, even her contemporaries who risked getting btfo for it called her "plain" at best. All her mintage shows 5/10 with a large nose. She was however extremely clever, was able to talk "manly" things like strategy, tactics, warfare, etc. with great expertise, spoke fluently like 11 languages. On top of that, she was supposedly very charming in person, very persuasive and had extremely pleasant, melodic voice.
All in all, very high IQ tomboy who knew her way around charming people.
Still, as shown by history again and again, you can't charm autists, therefore Augustus btfo'ing her.
damn bro who tf is this israeliteess lmao
I don't think you would recognize a israelite if he was banging your mother, anon.
Cleopatra was certainly of Phoenician/israeli blood, as were all "royal" families. Egypt itself was just another vassal state of Phoenicia (Canaan).
>Cleopatra was certainly of Phoenician/israeli blood
She was as Greek as you can get, moron. Both of her parents were Greek, both in widely accepted history (her grandmother on parents side being Greek) or in the bastard scenario (her grandmother being Greek concubine).
>all royal families were Phoenician/israeli
You need to go back.
>on parents side
Meant father's side of course.
Also she liked to party and have fun. Roman women at the time were up tight and conservative.
because minimalist ui can be scaled into different configurations easily
since you frickers insist on using those moronic ultrawide monitors or 2k, 4k. vertical monitors and other strange moronic setups this is what you fricking get
Same goes for the schmucks who demand these games to be ported to portable/mobile platforms. Why design a detailed UI when it's going to look like crap on a 6″ screen?
>why do rpgs, of all genres, fall for the minimalist ui meme?
Do they? Or maybe just the shit you play?
?
??
we wuz romenz an shieeeet
Making a good ui is really hard. Its way safer to just have something bland and inoffensive.
>d-dark souls 2... b-b-ba---ACK
Best UI ever. Kneel
SERVERS WHEN
Sorry but that's only for us consolechads. PCbabyies aren't responsible enough to be given servers
The problem isn't minimalism. Those examples are just low effort and generic. That isn't the same thing as minimalism.