New graphics - too bad

[GTSchemer]

I wonder if an option to simply reduce the saturation of the art (but keep that of the icons, and the layout) would help? Something like this custom css:

Code: Select all

.spl_cardheader, .spl_noble_shadow {
background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0.4);
}

I can't speak for others, but that instantly helps me. I could actually fade the art back in a little more and still be fine.

I do wish there were an option to substitute the old plain gems instead of the new disc gems, though. I didn't think of it in my earlier post, but being able to parse the shape AND the color of a gem probably helps more than a uniform round disc on all cards.

[DomitienAW]

Thanks a lot for your answer.

if a minority has a problem (e.g. color blindness or sensitivity to visual noise), of course general BGA behavior on average may not change.

I know and agree with you. However, some people commented that Splendor was massively loosing players and I had to indicate that this is not the case.

The old art has large gems on a clear background. The new art has tiny gems on a chip background, and this is much harder to naturally parse at a glance, leading to some viewers feeling overwhelmed or tired while staring at cards on a small mobile screen.
The old art has a dedicated icon strip. The new art has a strip that cuts off halfway through, distracting the eye with higher contrast elements as you try to parse the whole layout.

I’ve explained a little bit more about this here: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/330899 ... 4#44846184
Short answer: it’s a choice made since Splendor: Marvel in 2020 that was needed for a better gameplay understanding for casual gamers.

The old art had some repeated graphics for the same level of card. In my opinion, this means the brain can subconsciously associate the art, and easily recognize certain types of cards. The new art has a different art for every card, and the brain has to work to filter it out.

This is actually still the case:
- level 1 represent mines and transportation (more nature)
- level 2 represent markets and craftmens (close up on characters)
- level 3 are merchant guilds (big buildings)


However, you bring us a very valid point about how to better adapt this version to digital.
I already told it yesterday on BGG: we will look on how to implement a "high contrast"/"low noise" option to better include every one while still using the new design.

Have a great day

[GTSchemer]

However, you bring us a very valid point about how to better adapt this version to digital.
I already told it yesterday on BGG: we will look on how to implement a "high contrast"/"low noise" option to better include every one while still using the new design.

Have a great day

Thank you for the reply. For me, the CSS suggestion above is very helpful already, maybe reduced to .3 or .2 opacity instead.

If an option for that, plus the old gem icons existed, I think I would be comfortable. I hope someone else still reads the thread to chime in, since everyone is different of course.

[CuriositaArenita]

Hi. Are there any optional settings in the game or on a computer for users to make Splendor easier on the eyes? I'm not a computer programmer, so I need an easy fix for a MacBook Air. Is it too much color saturation and not enough definition? Is it a lack of contrast? I have no idea what settings to change to make the game enjoyable, again. The old design was so much easier to instantly scan and understand, so it was my favorite game on BGA. It was so beautiful, which made it a relaxing game to play. The new version hurts my eyes and stresses me out too much that I don't even want to play it. I've had to move to Splendor Duel. If Splendor Duel's design changes, I'm doomed! Has anyone seen an explanation from BGA on what happened to force this change? I want to understand, rather than scream into the void that my favorite stress-relief game is now useless.

[zajasu]

Surprisingly, I haven’t seen any image comparisons posted yet to evaluate the differences between the two versions.

Thank you for your response. As for me, comparison of two versions is definitely argument for the old version.

Old version has clear separation of important vs not important regions with information.
For example, in the old version top region of a card (with the score points and stone it gives) was semi-transparent, so it doesn't blend with the card, while with the new one, player has to put additional effort into distinguishing the info from background.

Same goes for the price area and for Nobles cards.
Take, for example, Noble card from new version with the price of 3 whites, 3 reds, 3 blacks from your image. It feels like 3 blacks icon belong to the dress of a Noble and is not a part of an informational area. I have a feeling that designer tried to fix it with the caveats on the sides of the Noble cards, but, imho, it doesn't help.

Compare it to the old version, where, again, thanks to the semi-transparent area on the left side you immediately see all the info you need.

As for

Lastly, I'd like to share some Splendor data to provide context on why we believe this design update is successful:
- Around 5,000 to 6,000 games are completed daily, both before and after the design change. While there are day-to-day variations, the average number has remained stable.
- Although some players have removed Splendor from their favorites list (some always do), the overall player having Splendor in their favorite continues to grow at the same pace as before.
- The drop-out rate from one month to the next is the same between June and July and between July and August. It’s also similar to other popular game like Azul or TTR numbers

I really enjoy this game and don't want to remove it from favorites, though I had to stop playing it due to design changes. This forum thread has a substantial amount of views / posts and you can't just say that it is irrelevant or we post here just because we have nothing else to do. Believe me, I would be much more pleased spending my time playing Splendor than writing this

The fact that players have to write custom CSS to be able to play the game says a lot in itself. I think admirers should be cherished and not tortured, so, maybe, it would be possible to add the option to use the old version of design. Maybe, use the new design as the default option or something like this.

Thank you.

[wwman]

Hello everyone,

Thank you so much for reaching out. It’s really important for us to hear from the community, and we greatly appreciate your feedback
We’ve been following the concerns expressed on the BGA forum since day 1 but wanted to take some time to gather more data before responding.

First, I'd like to clarify that on BGA, only the illustrations and graphic design were updated, the code in itself should be the same.
If you experience any global layout changes or display errors, please use BGA bug report feature so they can be properly investigated.

Surprisingly, I haven’t seen any image comparisons posted yet to evaluate the differences between the two versions.
It’s quite easy to find the older version using Google images or by playing the tutorial, which still features the previous design.



As you can see, there are no major differences in terms of readability.
It does take time to adjust to changes, but the new layout—with its colored banners—helps make the card colors more distinct.
The different shapes and orientations of the poker chips keeping them accessible for colorblind players.
Note that before we launched the new design, I personally played several games using a colorblindness emulator using both layouts and didn’t notice any significant difference in terms of readability. I also conducted playtests with colorblind players, who reported no issues other than adjusting from their familiarity with the old design.

The only change is the card requirement on the noble tile, which as been reduced. We’re actively working on improving this element.

Lastly, I'd like to share some Splendor data to provide context on why we believe this design update is successful:
- Around 5,000 to 6,000 games are completed daily, both before and after the design change. While there are day-to-day variations, the average number has remained stable.
- Although some players have removed Splendor from their favorites list (some always do), the overall player having Splendor in their favorite continues to grow at the same pace as before.
- The drop-out rate from one month to the next is the same between June and July and between July and August. It’s also similar to other popular game like Azul or TTR numbers

Has we’ve included a link to BGA in the new edition rulebook, we decided to maintain consistency by having this new version the only one available on the platform.
After nearly two months of observing feedback and usage data, we’ve decided to stick with this approach.
This is especially important as we plan to release the expansions on BGA in November and May.

Thanks again for your understanding and your continued support!

Appreciate the response but is still hard to understand these justifications.

First, “there are no major differences in terms of readability”. This is the most complained issue on forums and comments across the internet. This main problem is the cards new design followed by the digital adaptation’s contrast and crowded image which simply makes the game off putting, especially on mobile for me. To be specific, the colours of the gem and the new background clashes which requires more concentration to digest the card. (It appears the gem's glare has toned down recently? This is a good thing because before it was really painful to the eyes)

Secondly, “we believe this design update is successful”. This statement is very odd because I rarely/still have not seen a positive comment on the new digital adaption. There are more than 4.7k+ reads on this topic just from BGA alone in 2 months and they are all complaints. I don’t know about the real number of games played because BGA has cancelled the page to see the number of active games across all games, but I do see a lot of hardcore splendor players have either significantly reduced games or stopped completely.

In all fairness, I tried the physical copy of the new version and it is not as bad as the digital but the original one was still WAY better. I appreciate the customer support to read and address the issues but the best solution is to allow players have an option to choose the original graphics or the new graphics to play.

Thank you

[Drakien]

Looks fine to me.

[DomitienAW]

hello,

The high contrast option is now availiable.


you can activate it by clicking here:


Have a great day

[GTSchemer]

hello,

The high contrast option is now availiable.


you can activate it by clicking here:


Have a great day

Thank you for the new option! This looks like it may help!

[Cathaldo]

The same goes for me. Of course, those who made the change will always come up with unbelievable justifications rather than admit their mistake. If you're going to tell us the usual nonsense, spare us your bullshit. As a result, I'm feeling the same confusion and headaches. A game that was fluid, pleasant and clear has become obscure and confused, and I found it hard to finish even one game with this new mode, even though I know the game perfectly well. I really regret this change. I'll never play this game online again, it's too unpleasant. I'm keeping the box from the first edition and would strongly advise against buying the new version of this game, which I love in its original edition and recommend buying second-hand.