Fear: UIv2

[rjshae]

I don't have an issue with decorative borders around the edges of controls and information displays because they lend solidity to the appearance. Minimal borders just looks too modernist. As long as they don't take up huge chunks of screen real estate, I'm really not seeing a problem.

 

Clearly no one UI is going to please everybody.

[Sabotin]

All you young whippersnappers with your wide-eye monitors!

What about square ratios, I've always though the artsy buffer areas were there more or less so they can use the same UI for a multitude of resolutions.

[Trodat]

A solid UI with no stupid gaps in the middle of the screen is the only way to go really. I really don't understand why this is even an issue.

I think its worth mentioning that different kind of games should have different kind of UIs. Like Divinity: OS has a complitely different looking UI, minimalistic, and it works well in that atmosphere.

[Mico Selva]

I don't really care that much how GUI is designed, but I really really wish character portraits were on the side, like in BG/IWD. Especially that new monitors have much more horizontal than vertical space, so it would be only logical to use it. Constantly moving the view up and down because not everything fits on the screen vertically is annoying and it was a nightmare in IE games (replaying BG2 right now).

[Hassat Hunter]

And the combat log is very important, just because you use it (I believe you belong to the "insignificant" portion of minimalist UI fans), it doesn't mean that there aren't A LOT of people who use it all the time.

Ehm, me, a minimalist. Either you really misinterpretated all my posts here and on other UI discussions, or you confused me with someone else. Cause the last thing I am is minimalist.

 

My personal suggestion would still be the 2-bar setup, one vertical with characters and information like journal (so the 2 BG bars combined into one) to the left or right based on preference, and the bottom bar for all the rest. Considering most functions like portraits are already on the side-bar, the bottom bar can be pretty thin (but yes, stretch the whole screen).

 

Even with that opinion I absolutely despise putting the combat log INTO that HUD. During BG it was the most collapsed thing for me, and in order for it to be efficient is needs to be long. In order for the HUD to be efficient it needs to be short. I don't want a repeatal of the IWD2 UI which gives me nightmares for it's absolutely horrible design all around. Why they swithced the BG-style of BG2 and IWD1 for that, I will never understand.

And with being on *top* of the bottom bar instead of in it, it can still be very properly used by those having it on all the time (including myself actually, just... not as long as IWD2 or your mockup screenshots cause that's really too much screenspace for not much information. If I need more info I expand it, but that's far less frequent).

 

And yes, all screenshot so far still use the red and blue bar, which is equally horrible in design. I dont't really know how to fix the blue bar (since it's all new and all) but using a bar instead of the portraits is a step back in the wrong direction. Atleast it should have some graphical element surround it rather than being a freakin blue bar.

[JFSOCC]

I know MMO's are not popular here, but I did like that in Guild Wars you could move every element of the UI around and put it where you wanted it to be, make it as large as you wanted it to be. Everybody wins. Screen real estate is important, which is why transparent is favoured by me over the old Baldurs gate UI. I do get that you want that feel that the UI is part of the game. (much like is so expertly done in Papers, Please) But it's ultimately not as important as intuitive and easy to use UI.

[Prometheus]

My personal suggestion would still be the 2-bar setup, one vertical with characters and information like journal (so the 2 BG bars combined into one) to the left or right based on preference, and the bottom bar for all the rest. Considering most functions like portraits are already on the side-bar, the bottom bar can be pretty thin (but yes, stretch the whole screen).

 

 

Imo a bad idea. the attack buttons need to be near the portraits, because I think most of the time you will choose a different party member and then the action.

[Sensuki]

Ehm, me, a minimalist. Either you really misinterpretated all my posts here and on other UI discussions, or you confused me with someone else. Cause the last thing I am is minimalist.

I quoted Karkarov. How on earth did you manage to confuse that with yourself ?

[rjshae]

A solid UI with no stupid gaps in the middle of the screen is the only way to go really. I really don't understand why this is even an issue.

I think its worth mentioning that different kind of games should have different kind of UIs. Like Divinity: OS has a complitely different looking UI, minimalistic, and it works well in that atmosphere.

 

For me it's not so much where the "stupid gap" is in the screen as that it allows you to see some of the area real estate along the edges. This provides an illusion of access to the full screen for viewing, as well as making the area fit the golden rectangle ratio of the typical screen display. When you are moving a party in some direction, the edge of the screen is normally where you will be looking to see upcoming risk factors. Having that blocked off by a solid bar feels hindering.

[Hassat Hunter]

Imo a bad idea. the attack buttons need to be near the portraits, because I think most of the time you will choose a different party member and then the action.

Click character on screen, attack by clicking mouse? Why would it have a button. If you mean a special attack or spell, still don't see why the icons should be on the character, since actually clicking on them to change characters is probably not the most common way to change anyway. It's more there for your information, and having it on the top-sides makes that more accessable than having to stare at the bottom of your screen (which is why most games plant it there in the first place). I fully expect special attacks being number-keyed anyway, so switching to fighter, pressing 1 then selecting target for example if you don't want to traverse to the bottom of the screen to press the first special attack.

 

The portraits at the side will be mainly for information... if you start cluttering that with all kinds of buttons and actions, that easy acess information is gone.

I quoted Karkarov. How on earth did you manage to confuse that with yourself ?

Probably considering Karkarov didn't really talked much about the combat log at all, I did however devoted a full paragraph to it.

 

The result is still the same though, integrating the combat log into the HUD IWD2 style is a horrible idea and should not be done. It would be about the only 'floaty' UI element I would tolerate...

[CaptainMace]

Gotta say that I love the Karkarov UI, and that the one from BG is absolutely awful (not a surprise that the Enhanced Edition allows the player to hide it, which is welcome).

[Sensuki]

The result is still the same though, integrating the combat log into the HUD IWD2 style is a horrible idea and should not be done. It would be about the only 'floaty' UI element I would tolerate...

Wouldn't have this problem if they went for the Baldur's Gate 2 UI design, which if you paste over a screenshot actually looks great ... but oh no, apparently moving the mouse thousands of pixels is a problem. Ever heard of high mouse sensitivity, high mouse DPI or mouse acceleration Obsidian ???? (you know, the things that most people (but not me) have on by default)

 

(not a surprise that the Enhanced Edition allows the player to hide it, which is welcome).

BG:EE UI is awful. BG:EE is Awful and Beamdog are awful.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Sensuki

[Hassat Hunter]

Ehm, even without the  EE, one is able to completely collapse the HUD.

And yes, BG2's HUD is pretty slick, useful and good looking.

 

Also while walking outside thought up a fix for the 'stamina bar' issue... since it's a long-term resource, and health a fight-resource how about;

 

* During regular play the icon will get filled blue with stamina damage. The bluer, the more risk you get of being killed.

* During combat the blue overlay dissapears and the red one (health appears).

* After combat is over, you no longer need health info, and it goes back displaying stamina, probably slightly changed due to combat results.

* If for whatever reason you need to look up Stamina in a battle (is there one?) you can still hover over the icon and get HP and Stamina information.

 

Considering the way I have read stamina and health works, this should work perfectly, and completely removes the ugly red/blue or blue-bar issues all HUD mockups plagued to this day and are horrible beyond words...

[Trodat]

 

A solid UI with no stupid gaps in the middle of the screen is the only way to go really. I really don't understand why this is even an issue.

I think its worth mentioning that different kind of games should have different kind of UIs. Like Divinity: OS has a complitely different looking UI, minimalistic, and it works well in that atmosphere.

 

For me it's not so much where the "stupid gap" is in the screen as that it allows you to see some of the area real estate along the edges. This provides an illusion of access to the full screen for viewing, as well as making the area fit the golden rectangle ratio of the typical screen display. When you are moving a party in some direction, the edge of the screen is normally where you will be looking to see upcoming risk factors. Having that blocked off by a solid bar feels hindering.

 

Yeah, well I can understand that it may feel limitating and kind of artificial. But in my opinion since this is a game that uses RTwP and a fixed camera, it is not really needed. You'll be pausing the game often and its not going to be that much of an issue.

I'm not really sure if I prefer BG2 or IWD2 style more, modification between those two would probably be the best.

[CaptainMace]

 

BG:EE UI is awful. BG:EE is Awful and Beamdog are awful.

 

 Yeah that's not the topic but thank you for this original point of view

[Sensuki]

When you are moving a party in some direction, the edge of the screen is normally where you will be looking to see upcoming risk factors. Having that blocked off by a solid bar feels hindering.

The height is what 1/5 or less of the screen, and you'll *never* be paying attention to the screen next to the UI on the map. You won't be scrolling sideways and looking there, you'll be looking in the middle or middle of the side of the screen you're scrolling.

 

When you're scrolling down you'll be looking ... down ... and the UI will be there. That bit of dead space is worth taking up with the UI to provide extra functionality. If the bottom of the screen is full, you won't get the feeling you experience because it will be like the edge of the screen anyway.

[Mor]

Objective #1: Use up less screen space overall.

 

This is something that they stated they were going to do, make the UI smaller. This is something I wouldn't necessarily agree with unless it was trimming a little bit of vertical space that they could have spared from the original. In my opinion there is absolutely no point in not using up the total width of the screen for an IWD style UI as it allows you more space to make use of functionality (such as extra action bar buttons, quick item buttons etc). It is possible that this is exactly what they did.

 

However the unfortunate fans of minimalistic UI's probably influenced this decision a little bit.

1. Developer decision to make UI smaller is correct and reflects what most of us want. Because bg2 interface doesn't work for wider resolution and much of is just dead space. Here is the best case with overly large buttons:

 

 

With that being said that doesn't mean we are proponents of minimalistic approach, or want bars that lack any style, this and BG interface are just two extremes.

 

2. If the UI ends up as bottom bar. I agree that we should use all available space to provide more functionality. But keep in mind that this is not 1999, there are many various resolutions and more importantly several aspects ratios i.e. the max available space for their UI design will not necessarily be your max screen width.

 

Here is an illustration of 4:3(800x600) like BG, compared to much more common 16:9(1366×768,1680×1050,1920×1080):

 

 

So unless they are going to develop a UI for every aspect ratio(very unlikely) those "wings" on the side will not be used for any functions. Which is why UI are commonly docked to the middle/corner(like here or diablo3) or combined of several elements they allow you to customize according to your preference.

 

 

Btw I rearranged your UI, it makes more sense to put the action buttons near the portraits/abilities. Also can someone confirm if the UI will be on the bottom or not?

Edited December 12, 2013 by Mor

[Sensuki]

1. Developer decision to make UI smaller is correct and reflects what most of us want.

Did you see Update 54? Most people wanted it to take up MORE space. My mock up was the only mock up that took up less space than the original UI in Art Update 54, until Karkarov made his.

 

Combat log won't be on the left as per developer decision. Menu might be in the middle, but in IWD2 it was on the right.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Sensuki

[Mor]

 

1. Developer decision to make UI smaller is correct and reflects what most of us want.

Did you see Update 54? Most people wanted it to take up MORE space. My mock up was the only mock up that took up less space than the original UI in Art Update 54, until Karkarov made his.

 

I have yet to make any comment on their final result, my comment was about making smaller interface than what we used to like in Bg2, per my mock up and technical explanations.

 

Combat log won't be on the left as per developer decision. Menu might be in the middle, but in IWD2 it was on the right.

Good to know. Also I just took another look at it, and apparently I mistook that menu for an action menu(move/attack), so you can disregard this change. Edited December 12, 2013 by Mor

[rjshae]

 

When you are moving a party in some direction, the edge of the screen is normally where you will be looking to see upcoming risk factors. Having that blocked off by a solid bar feels hindering.

The height is what 1/5 or less of the screen, and you'll *never* be paying attention to the screen next to the UI on the map. You won't be scrolling sideways and looking there, you'll be looking in the middle or middle of the side of the screen you're scrolling.

 

When you're scrolling down you'll be looking ... down ... and the UI will be there. That bit of dead space is worth taking up with the UI to provide extra functionality. If the bottom of the screen is full, you won't get the feeling you experience because it will be like the edge of the screen anyway.

 

Ah no, that's decidedly not the feeling I get. A straight, solid, dark bar across the bottom is a weight that pulls down the eyes. This effect can be ameliorated by the use of tricks like semi-transparency, adjusting the coloration to match visible parts of the area, or leaving gaps. Having an uneven bar also seems to help a little.

Edited December 12, 2013 by rjshae

[Sensuki]

o_________________O

[Sabotin]

I'd normally prefer minimal UIs, but for PE I have to go with a large and in charge one. There's just so much mousework (referencing IE and dnd games in general) that a consolidated and detailed UI seems like a better option, as opposed to having pieces of UI all over the place or menus 5 levels deep. Rather than cutting the functionality or adding artwork, maybe just have parts of the UI not show when they are absolutely not needed (for example icons in BG2 are different when you have multiple party members selected).

 

It really comes down to personal preference I guess, but as long as the UI isn't annoying to use we'll probably forget about it in 5 min.

[Mor]

@Sensuki, I looked at the concept again and unless we separate the portraits/indicators from the actions\abilities\spells etc bar and put it on the side. I can't think of anything major other than a pretty paint over.

 

Rather than cutting the functionality or adding artwork, maybe just have parts of the UI not show when they are absolutely not needed.

Absolutely, what we have now, is hardly enough for all the abilities/potions/spells/etc we have been told about. I would be surprised if the current "action" slots didn't doubled up into another row for additional options.

[Hassat Hunter]

Hmmm, people act like we got a new mockup yet? If so, that's news for me.

We only got one official one, and according to the developers it's already been greatly changed.

 

It would be nice to see the new mockup to confirm/deny our fears. Cause a good way to immediately make your 'BG spiritual successor' a pain-in-the-butt is by a horrid UI (I look at you Dragon Age).

[Karkarov]

Hmmm, people act like we got a new mockup yet? If so, that's news for me.

We only got one official one, and according to the developers it's already been greatly changed.

 

It would be nice to see the new mockup to confirm/deny our fears. Cause a good way to immediately make your 'BG spiritual successor' a pain-in-the-butt is by a horrid UI (I look at you Dragon Age).

Sensuki's concern is that way back in the mock up thread Sawyer basically quoted my final mockup version and said "this is pretty close to what we are doing".  Since mine is minimalist while focusing on looking nice but being primarily about function he obviously hates it.  Especially since one of my key sticky points is a chat box/combat log to the side that is optional to disable so that you only ever see it in actual conversation or if you purposefully pull it up.