Fear: UIv2

[Mor]

 

This would be more helpful if you can show a modern game with your idea of UI. Because most here loved BG UI, it worked well for a fixed 800x600, but as I pointed out before its not 1999, there many different resolution\aspect ratio to consider and BG UI design don't work for most of us.

I'm not sure if you read the Update 54 thread before you posted here, but you should because there are several mock-ups that meet this criteria.  I'm including one of mine as an example, but look for others.

 

 

I said before I like the idea of placing the portraits on the right, because IMO today we have far more horizontal space then vertical and we should use it. With that being said, I am not an expert and most developers go for a bottom UI..

 

As for your deign, here are a couple of notes caught with my untrained eye:

1. You will have the same "gap issues" I outlined in the previous post.

2. You ignored the presumably new mechanic to indicate status(the flags under the portraits) which has more space in obsidian bottom design.

3. That bar on the left and bottom are complete waste of space, which would only grow the higher res you go.(btw what many people here refer to as high-res is actually today common res).

 

Other than that its just the same design only moving almost everything to the right, using already painted over elements and solving the actions issue with WOW like floating elements, which many said they dislike. Also IMO the veritcal health\stamina bars make more sense when they outlined horizontally as in obsidian version, which gives you a better tactical indication of where you party stands.

 

p.s. Please use spoiler tags, I hate image spam thread

Edited December 14, 2013 by Mor

[Wolfenbarg]

The level of anger in these threads is always kind of shocking to me. 

[Sensuki]

You know what's funny? When this thread started, I was in full agreement with Sensuki. But as more and more posts are made, the completely oposite starts to happen and I start to completely disagree with any and all points made. It's... odd.

We both prefer the BG2 Style UI. We both like blood over the portrait. The difference between our opinions there is that I think on smaller portraits that it wouldn't work and with two colors it looks silly. You seem to want blood on the portrait no matter what?

 

I like U shaped UI style the best for an IE style game. IWD2 bottom bar would be my second preference, followed by a Titan Quest style middle bar. I really do not want something like Karkarov's mockup or a minimalistic transparent MMO style UI.

 

You also seem to be disregarding two facts: The UI is a bottom bar style, they won't change it even if you file a court order. And the portraits are not going to be BG1 size as much as I want them to be.

  

Also, IWD2's HUD was horrible. Absolutely freakin' HORRIBLE. The less we take it as base for PE the better. If a OE-developer ever even thinks "Hey, this is how it worked in IWD2" they should immediately discard it. It was THAT bad. I kid you not.

I have no idea what Black Isle thought when they went from the excellent BG2 interface to that steaming pile of IWD2 interface

I prefer the BG2 UI over IWD2, but they are *not* going to do it. If you don't want to accept that, then that's your problem.

 

The portrait size ain't fixed... so there goes 1 point against 'zero chance.' There have been 2 different suggestions so far to deal with the new mechanisms that doesn't make it look like a 5 year old drew 2 bars on your HUD, so there's 2 points against 'zero chance.' And for some odd reason it works far better than having a seperate tiny 2 bars to it, as can also be seen in other RPG's using said system, which makes 3 'zero chances.' Or as they say in baseball... "You're out!"

So what. They've already decided how they are going to handle it, they are not going to use blood over the portraits. Once again, if you don't want to accept their word, or my relaying of it to you, that's fine. That's your problem.

 

The portrait size may change ... within the realm of a few pixels.

 

Then they could add... *drumsounds* a verticle side-bar.

Not gonna happen. They said they're doing a bottom bar.

  

I'm not so sure. I still fear a travesty like the IceWind Dale II interface. Which was, if you haven't mentioned me saying it yet, bad. Very very bad. I was kinda hoping they would just stick to BG-style, with the "spiritual BG successor" and all, but that art update crushed my dreams. Then they said it would be modified... *hope up* but that hope didn't nearly stay there long enough, and is pretty much in the 'fear for disaster' level again. I have faith in OE, but it's just that their last attempt (as Black Isle) to re-make an IE interface turned out so damned horrible, one can't help but feel insecure about it.

It's gonna be a bottom bar like IWD2. I prefer BG2 UI but I can live with a bottom bar. Once again, that's your problem if you can't deal with that.

 

A dev came into the thread and said it's going to be a bottom bar. Did you not see that post? Or the one about the portrait size in Kaz's thread? Maybe they don't exist!

Edited December 14, 2013 by Sensuki

[Sensuki]

I think I will just quote you right back.  No offense Sensuki, but I REALLY hope you find something better to do with your time than hunt down posts I made... what 6 months ago???, and repeatedly take them out of context.  You seriously need to get a life and learn deal with people not agreeing with you.

I had the thread open, it really wasn't that much effort. And they were not taken out of context at all.

 

You belong to the minimalist crowd. You like pop-out menu elements. You like Dragon Age Origins and XCOM Enemy Unknown and consider them examples of a tactical RPG. You don't care about a full range of menu buttons for functionality, you use hotkeys and just want to get rid of most of the UI and you seem to take stock in mainstream video game reviewers. Those are all things that you said and all of that evidence falsifies your statement that you're UI is not designed for any crowd.

 

You've got me though, I am a fanatic. I want this game to be the best it can be. I conducted an interview during the KS, participated in the AMA & the RPGCodex Interview, I participate in discussions on the game across multiple forums, I have a loud voice and I don't back down from a discussion.

 

I don't own a console, I've never played Skyrim. I don't play MMOs. I don't want influences from those things interfering with my nostalgic IE experience.

 

If you don't like that, there's an ignore button.

 

PS: All Sawyer said was there is no right left split with a gap in the middle.  He didn't say it takes the whole bottom.  Wait for an actual new mockup before making more assumptions.  I won't care as long as the mostly useless combat log can be turned off.

That's right but a centered UI is better than gaps in the middle. I do hope it takes up the full width, but if it does they'd have some issues with scaling and aspect ratio to consider.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Sensuki

[CaptainMace]

 

I don't own a console, I've never played Skyrim. I don't play MMOs.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2013 by CaptainMace

[curryinahurry]

 

 

This would be more helpful if you can show a modern game with your idea of UI. Because most here loved BG UI, it worked well for a fixed 800x600, but as I pointed out before its not 1999, there many different resolution\aspect ratio to consider and BG UI design don't work for most of us.

I'm not sure if you read the Update 54 thread before you posted here, but you should because there are several mock-ups that meet this criteria.  I'm including one of mine as an example, but look for others.

 

 

I said before I like the idea of placing the portraits on the right, because IMO today we have far more horizontal space then vertical and we should use it. With that being said, I am not an expert and most developers go for a bottom UI..

 

As for your deign, here are a couple of notes caught with my untrained eye:

1. You will have the same "gap issues" I outlined in the previous post.

2. You ignored the presumably new mechanic to indicate status(the flags under the portraits) which has more space in obsidian bottom design.

3. That bar on the left and bottom are complete waste of space, which would only grow the higher res you go.(btw what many people here refer to as high-res is actually today common res).

 

Other than that its just the same design only moving almost everything to the right, using already painted over elements and solving the actions issue with WOW like floating elements, which many said they dislike. Also IMO the veritcal health\stamina bars make more sense when they outlined horizontally as in obsidian version, which gives you a better tactical indication of where you party stands.

 

p.s. Please use spoiler tags, I hate image spam thread

 

 

As a note, this was a mock-up I put together as a response on the UI thread, so it is a bit out of context.  You should look at that thread for other examples and read the discussion if you care to follow the rationale those of us who prefer the U shaped frame.  The points that you bring up were addressed in that discussion, but they are all valid.  This of course was a 10 minute re-working of the BG2 UI to fit with POE.  If I were to sit down and actually design a UI for this game, it might look quite different.

 

With regards to the frame being wasted space; you are right but this is the look that many think is the best version of the IE interfaces.  It's an aesthetic preference.  I had 

posted one version with a transparency slider for that frame, so one could do away with it if they cared to.  

[Hassat Hunter]

This would be more helpful if you can show a modern game with your idea of UI.

Sadly, a good UI on a modern game is hard to find. I'll see what I can find, but there's been a massive change to crappy interfaces over the past years. Mostly to accomidate controllers. DA2 and Skyrim being great offenders of making things far more complicated than need be. But also The Witcher II's extremely huge item inventory so you could see about 6 items at one time. What?

Yes, I like full-screen interfaces. But there's no reason what-so-ever to put very little detail in each screen requiring you to swap all the time.

Imagine if in the BG games you couldn't change inventory screen by clicking the portrait, but had to go ingame, inventory, ingame, inventory other member, ingame, inventory other member. It would make you mad. Yet many modern interfaces use such a crappy system.

The other end, you have Dragon Age: Origins, where instead of full-screen they simply use a tiny popup in the middle, also with huge text and icons, still requiring you to scroll a lot and have no clear overview of what you want to know.

I definitely don't want pop-up stuff like the picture on the last page, full-screen information screens all the way. But we can use the current resolutions to merge more systems into one screen, inventory and character overview for example.

Because most here loved BG UI, it worked well for a fixed 800x600, but as I pointed out before its not 1999, there many different resolution\aspect ratio to consider and BG UI design don't work for most of us.

Solution 3; Make 3 UI's in the highest res possible, 4:3, 16:9 and 16:10 and scale them back according to resolution. There, was it that hard?

Much easier than making one UI to fit all 3 sizes, or make a HUD per resolution (seriously?)

And as I stated before I do think 3 bars is no longer needed, but a bottom *and* side instead of one or the other seems most efficient. Especially since portraits at the sides will tell you much more than at the bottom at a quicker glance. With only one side-bar, you should be able to pick your desired side, so left-handed or right-handed have the quickest option to select all they want and need.

The difference between our opinions there is that I think on smaller portraits that it wouldn't work and with two colors it looks silly. You seem to want blood on the portrait no matter what?

Then don't use smaller portraits? I mean, why would one want to decrease them anyway. I looked at the mockup again, and the modifiers under it are TINY (seriously, I hadn't even noticed them before). Unviewable. Is that good? The portraits are IMPORTANT. You can nible on space elsewhere all you want, but portraits would definitely be ill-advised. I agree 2 colors at the same-time can be confusing, which is why I, personally, suggested only 1 of the 2 active (one in-combat, the other out-of-combat). And no, if anybody has a better suggestion than the blood I would yield. But so far, the only thing anyone used is a red and blue bar next to the portrait. Which is horrible. And thus I keep to blood, yes.

You also seem to be disregarding two facts: The UI is a bottom bar style, they won't change it even if you file a court order. And the portraits are not going to be BG1 size as much as I want them to be.

Still; None of this is set in stone. UI is definitely not finalised in this stage of development, and it can still be greatly modified from what currently is in place. So it's not as fixed in stone as you may want to make out.

I'd rather give my support to 2 bar UI than just giving up on that, and suggest things for a single bottom bar UI even if I know I won't even support my own suggestions then. Would be a waste of post-time and space.

I prefer the BG2 UI over IWD2, but they are *not* going to do it. If you don't want to accept that, then that's your problem.

I didn't even make this thread . Kind off odd hearing 'just accept it' from you, the OP on a thread complaing UI design. Obviously you don't take your own advice, and for good reasons I might add.

Not gonna happen. They said they're doing a bottom bar.

Need I remind you again? "They said they're doing a degenerating items system."

Now some suggestions definitely are too late now (make it turn-based! Make it in space!) but on this subject, it's still well within paramaters for change.

 

It seems you've completely given up on UI-changes. Which is weird. If you do, why did you make this thread in the first place? Or is it purely and only allowed to discuss bottom-bar designs, instead of all UI designs? If so you better change the thread's name to make it clearer or something.

[Sensuki]

Then don't use smaller portraits?

You say that as if I am the one designing the UI for PE. Lol. Not me you need to convince bro.

 

Still; None of this is set in stone. UI is definitely not finalised in this stage of development, and it can still be greatly modified from what currently is in place.

Josh sounded like the design was pretty much final at this stage. Go read his posts from the Art Update 54 - you will not see a U shaped UI under his watch, the one thing he considered was an L shaped UI, but they never ended up going there.

 

I didn't even make this thread . Kind off odd hearing 'just accept it' from you, the OP on a thread complaing UI design. Obviously you don't take your own advice, and for good reasons I might add.

When I made this thread we were not sure what they were doing with the UI, I had a suspicion that they were doing something like the mockup I posted in the OP, or the "Karkarov style" one - going by the last quote. Josh has since posted in this thread saying that the UI is a bottom bar style. What I meant by the above statements were you seem to be disregarding anything the developers say - which leads onto the next quote.

 

Need I remind you again? "They said they're doing a degenerating items system."

They did and even when they posted the update about Crafting, Josh posted that the Crafting skill was the one he was the least sure about. The response to the skill was overwhelmingly against durability, so they didn't really lose anything by removing it.

There's no majority voice on the UI though, so the developers are going to stick to their guns - feel free to think that they're going to change it, but I don't think they will.

 

It seems you've completely given up on UI-changes. Which is weird. If you do, why did you make this thread in the first place? Or is it purely and only allowed to discuss bottom-bar designs, instead of all UI designs? If so you better change the thread's name to make it clearer or something.

I stated my preference order - BG2 UI, which was never going to happen. Followed by a full skeuomorphic bottom bar. That's what I hope we get. If we end up getting a centered bar, and the devs ask "tell us what you think" then I will, but from other discussions I know that once Josh has made a decision, most of the time he sticks to it no matter what.

[Karkarov]

You've got me though, I am a fanatic. I want this game to be the best it can be.

You sure do go about it in all the wrong ways.  Your UI designs are always bad.  You never suggest anything progressive that builds on good design changes from games released say.... in the last decade?  You always flame and insult anyone who doesn't agree with you.  Your opinion always comes down to "remake BG 2".  I am sorry but if you were in charge of this game it would be an EXTREME niche product and more than likely go down in burning flames and be critically panned by pretty much everyone other than fanboys of the niche.

 

So you will have to just deal with the fact that I would like a game that looks like it was designed in 2012 not 1994.

[Hassat Hunter]

I don't mind there wont be an U-shaped interface. I do realise it's 2013. But an L-shaped would definitely be prefered to just a bottom bar to me.

 

I'm not ignoring what Josh says. I just know the UI wont be finalised at this point yet, so  if it's a bottom now, it wont mean it can't still change this stage in development. If it was as finalised as you think it would be, we would have already seen screenshots of it. But they wont yet since they know they might still change severly after this point.

 

Josh isn't the only developer. And from what I read Koz is actually the one working on making it all a reality (art-wise anyway, surely someone else adds in the workings and framing and scaling and what-not).

[Sensuki]

Project Director has the final say though. I think it's a bit too "optimistic" to think that they are going to change their UI design.

 

The UI probably isn't done because it's being implemented. They have a Programming Intern working on it. There's also probably "features" that aren't in yet.

 

Personally I don't like the proposed L-shaped design, because they stated that the portraits must be next to the action bar. So if they did an L shaped design - the action icons would be next to the portraits, rather than the Baldur's Gate style.

[curryinahurry]

Now I'm wondering if they do another KS for additional stretch goals, if we can get a BG2 style UI option for an Additional 500k raised.  I would gladly contribute $100 towards that goal.  Of course, this might be unfeasible from a technical standpoint, but I would take that over additional NPCs (although I would like more wilderness areas).

Edited December 14, 2013 by curryinahurry

[Sensuki]

Waste of money. Better spent on content & stuff.

[Hassat Hunter]

okay, I bite.

Why *MUST* the portraits and action bar be together. What is the action bar anyway (I can't see anything in the mockup). Is it a quick overview what actions are taken? Then it can be at the bottom right, since it needs no interaction? Is it to quickly select quick-spells or attacks? Then it can be at the bottom too I think, with hotkeys. If you have a party selected you can even use multiple without needing to select portraits again. You can select them ingame, then go to the bottom, then up. So many sollutions.

And if they really must, for whatever reason, be next to the portraits, we can always use the space other mockup have designated for that horrid blue/red lines since the bigger portraits allow proper blood

But also, there should be more than enough space to still do it under the portraits if they so desire. I wont object to some functional spacing between portraits, why would I?

 

I think your still confusing requirements with decisions.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Sensuki]

The Action bar is all of the ability icons. In Icewind Dale 2 those were mappable buttons, rather than static in the other games.

 

Their argument for placing the ability icons above the portraits was to minimize the mouse distance between them. Go back and read the Art Update thread for exact quotes. If they were next to the portraits Josh said that they should be on the left because "the right to left mouse movement is more comfortable". Curryinahurry and I have already talked about that specific argument a few pages ago.

 

I have already stated ITT that it's not something I agree with specifically, but minimizing the distance between portraits and icons isn't bad design.

 

Edit:

 

I have to say I think it's strange that people are requesting UI layouts with character portraits far away from action icons, floating wireframe UIs, and similar features. While it's true that BG1 and IWD1 used wrap-around UIs, that was because 640x480 base resolutions didn't allow us to fit all of the elements along one edge of the screen. As soon as we went to 800x600 in IWD2, we immediately went to a consolidated UI layout that made mouse movement much more efficient. I understand that a lot of people use hotkeys and we certainly plan to support that, but GUIs need to be functional for people who use them. Putting abilities 75%+ of the screen width away from the character portraits is really inefficient.

The right hand generally has a greater and more comfortable range of motion to the left than to the right.

We are designing the GUI to be mouse-friendly. Designs that put character portraits on top of Old Smoky and action icons on the bottom of the Mariana Trench go very strongly against that goal.

Mouse travel is important not because of the distance it covers once, but because the distance it covers literally thousands of times over the course of the game. UIs intended for long-term use should have ergonomic considerations.

 

Left-side L is also creates the most uncomfortable direction to move the mouse in (assuming you're right-handed): upper left to lower right. Given the choice between a left- or right-side L, I'd prefer a right-side L. But I'd rather not have an L for portraits/action icons at all. The combat log is one of the most domineering elements of the UI but it's also one that could easily be separated from the rest. If we were to have some sort of an L layout, I think a right-side pane containing portraits and action icons with an adjustable combat log on the bottom could work well.

Whether it's action icons next to the portraits or below the portraits, keeping them in the same "zone" of the screen is what I would like to do if we were to do a vertically-oriented bar. Ultimately, whatever the orientation and placement of elements, I think it's good to keep the portraits near the action icons.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Sensuki

[curryinahurry]

Waste of money. Better spent on content & stuff.

 

Absolutely disagree...this is the reasoning behind why we get crappy UI in games.  

 

Also, if they wanted real efficiency with the action bars, they would have vertical portraits with action bar as roll-out when one moved the cursor over the portrait. 2 clicks (action and object) and done.  Now we have a minimum of 3 clicks and possibly more with sub-menus.

[Sensuki]

Possibly could be modded in though, who knows.

 

I don't think their default UI will be bad.

[Mor]

I just know the UI wont be finalised at this point yet, so  if it's a bottom now, it wont mean it can't still change this stage in development. If it was as finalised as you think it would be, we would have already seen screenshots of it. But they wont yet since they know they might still change severly after this point.

The UI is more than one screen and likely to share some elements with others(like inventory in BG2). So while their UI is not yet finalized, I'd be surprised if at this stage their overall design decision togo with bottom UI isn't.

[Hassat Hunter]

Still not saying me much, or why they are exeptionally needed at the portraits. A pull-out system as described as above would work I think (actually I suggested something like that before in previous HUD discussions. Click the portrait, move letf/right (depending on location of the sidebar) then move even further left/right for the action itself.

 

Depends if left or right handed, by a single-bar you could allow them to be swappable to guarantee optimal performance for both handed. Rather than base it just on the movement of us right-handers.

 

Really depends on how often you need those buttons to sacrifice a good overview of your characters status up for them.

 

 

As soon as we went to 800x600 in IWD2, we immediately went to a consolidated UI layout that made mouse movement much more efficient.

Also the UI horribly bad and intruisive and a pain to work with for the duration of the game

 

Selecting by mouse by clicking, dragging and all that will probably be in too, so while yes, it may save mouse-time for selecting from portraits, the same might not be true for these 2 control methods. I don't know which of the 2 is more popular by players.

 

Anway, the biggest thing I hope is that the OE-devs learned of all the bad things they made with IWD2's HUD and not repeat them. And who knows, maybe their bottom bar HUD may postively suprise me. But since IWD2 is still called often as a heavy influence, I can never assume that myself.

[Sensuki]

Rather than base it just on the movement of us right-handers.

That's just an excuse IMO, and one not backed by very good evidence.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Sensuki

[Rostere]

I loved the UI of the BG games. Excellent, "woody" type of UI. Not this horrible newfangled "tinny", wiry, thin, transparent and too minimalistic type of UI.

[Karkarov]

Still not saying me much, or why they are exeptionally needed at the portraits. A pull-out system as described as above would work I think (actually I suggested something like that before in previous HUD discussions. Click the portrait, move letf/right (depending on location of the sidebar) then move even further left/right for the action itself.

It is just an efficiency issue.  When you select a character the buttons on the action bar obviously change to reflect the character you have selected.  So when you need to do a number of different actions on different characters it is just invariably easier if the action bar is nearer the portraits so there is as little movement as possible while you set up your actions.  Puts less strain on the wrist long term, less movement of mouse, and makes it faster to perform.  Short term not a big deal but over the course of hundreds of encounters?  It adds up.

[Rostere]

You belong to the minimalist crowd. You like pop-out menu elements. You like Dragon Age Origins and XCOM Enemy Unknown and consider them examples of a tactical RPG. You don't care about a full range of menu buttons for functionality, you use hotkeys and just want to get rid of most of the UI and you seem to take stock in mainstream video game reviewers. Those are all things that you said and all of that evidence falsifies your statement that you're UI is not designed for any crowd.

 

This should pretty much settle this discussion.

 

 

You've got me though, I am a fanatic. I want this game to be the best it can be. I conducted an interview during the KS, participated in the AMA & the RPGCodex Interview, I participate in discussions on the game across multiple forums, I have a loud voice and I don't back down from a discussion.

 

I don't own a console, I've never played Skyrim. I don't play MMOs. I don't want influences from those things interfering with my nostalgic IE experience.

 

Just don't let the hate from Karkarov and all the WoW kids get to you, there are lots of people who are on your side in this debate, please keep posting and stating your views

[Karkarov]

This should pretty much settle this discussion.

Discussion require civility and mutual respect.  Since Sensuki isn't very civil and there is clearly no mutual respect I think it is fairly clear what "this" was.  Also the vocal minority is always the last person a designer should listen to.  Everyone's opinion should count and has value to a point but when you basically ram your opinion down everyone's throat and admit that you don't care what other people think and feel you are "more important" than other forum users... well...

 

Case in point.  My ui mock ups evolved and changed based on feedback from posters.  Sensuki's not so much.  The fact that you guys have to keep falling back on petty insults and flames to me also speaks volumes.

[Rostere]

 

This should pretty much settle this discussion.

Discussion require civility and mutual respect.  Since Sensuki isn't very civil and there is clearly no mutual respect I think it is fairly clear what "this" was.  Also the vocal minority is always the last person a designer should listen to.  Everyone's opinion should count and has value to a point but when you basically ram your opinion down everyone's throat and admit that you don't care what other people think and feel you are "more important" than other forum users... well...

 

Case in point.  My ui mock ups evolved and changed based on feedback from posters.  Sensuki's not so much.  The fact that you guys have to keep falling back on petty insults and flames to me also speaks volumes.

 

Who is the vocal minority? Based on the poll and discussion here, I think it's clear most people do not want this "modern" (NWN onwards) minimalist UI you keep talking about. But maybe we should make yet another poll.