[Kde-games-devel] When will background be configurable? (was: Kpat and card style chooser)

[Eugene Trounev]

I actually agree with you here. As a designer I'm all against any kind  of 
separations in styles. That creates unnecessary restrains, no to mention later 
file management problems.

On Tuesday 18 November 2008 14:58:34 Parker Coates wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 13:05, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > Parker Coates wrote:
> >> I personally think the independent selection of card fronts and backs
> >> is a simple case of over customisability.
> >
> > I still don't like making fronts and backs inseparable. What about
> > standardizing on some common sizes, and restricting the choice of backs
> > to those matching the "shape" of the deck? You can still do "unusual"
> > decks; they just won't have many choices of back. But "standard"-sized
> > decks can have many choices. (And a back can provide more than one
> > "shape", of course.)
>
> This just seems like overkill to me and a case of "just cause you can,
> don't mean you should". Is there really anyone who cares that much
> about card backs, but who wouldn't be willing open up the SVGs to make
> a deck of their own. It just seems like a lot of code and a lot of UI
> noise to add functionality that (I'm guessing) very few people care
> about. I think conceptually it's much cleaner to select a deck which
> has predetermined front sides and back sides, as it mirrors real life.
> It also ensures consistency while keeping thing simple for deck
> designers.
>
> >> It also seems a bit odd that in KPat 4.2 you can choose
> >> card backs independently, but not the background image which is
> >> something I would assume a lot more people would be interested in
> >> customising.
> >
> > I've been complaining about that for some time :-).
>
> Maybe if you'd done more programming and "Les Whinen", it could've
> been included in 4.2, but as it is, we're stuck with what we've got
> until 4.3. ;)
>
> >> Of course, if we're in the process of unifying decks, then maybe it
> >> makes sense to also include backgrounds and transition from "decks" to
> >> "themes". It works for our other games, why not for our card games?
> >> For example, the current default background looks very nice when
> >> combined with the Royal Jolly deck, but looks a bit odd when combined
> >> with one of the cleaner, simpler decks like, say, Nicu Ornamental.
> >> Letting deck designers choose their backgrounds seems pretty
> >> reasonable to me.
> >
> > ...but then you /remove/ that choice from the user. IMO there's a reason
> > our mahjong games didn't go this route.
>
> Technically, you can't really "remove" a choice that the user never
> really had in the first place. In fact adding the background to the
> theme would technically be giving them more background choice than
> they currently have, but I see where you're coming from.
>
> I could be convinced that a separate background selection is a
> worthwhile feature, but I really can't see the usefulness of
> independent card backs and fronts. But then again, maybe I'm just
> biased because I mostly play Simple Simon where you don't see any card
> backs at all.
>
> Parker
> _______________________________________________
> kde-games-devel mailing list
> kde-games-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-games-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-games-devel/attachments/20081118/840a05e5/attachment.htm