Suggestions for the Solid UI

[Ashen Rohk]

But that initial screen grab just looks...so drab. The smooth minimalist design replaced what are essentially slabs of wood

[BlueLion]

But that initial screen grab just looks...so drab. The smooth minimalist design replaced what are essentially slabs of wood

 

That's a quick, inital mock up. It is far from representative of the final artistic style.

[Sensuki]

But that initial screen grab just looks...so drab. The smooth minimalist design replaced what are essentially slabs of wood

 

 

Yeah I'll bet that's like "I have been working on this for literally 20 minutes so far"

[Ineth]

I still want an L shape. Horizontal space is the most, so a vertical bar makes sense...

 

Yes modern monitors have more horizontal space than vertical, but that's because that extra horizontal space is needed to make a three-dimensional or isometric scene (be it a movie or a pre-rendered game world) immersive and pleasant to look at.

 

That's why modern cinema productions tend to use super-wide aspect ratios (even wider than the 16:9 of modern computer screens). Go and rent a straight-to-TV movie or series from the 80's or 90's some time (when they used 4:3), and watch it on a modern device - it's almost painful to watch. Otoh watching a movie that is too wide for the 16:9 monitor, is not grating in the same way.

 

The same applies to games - the actual game world scene needs much more width than height in order to look majestic and pleasant. A side bar takes away from that. A bottom bar doesn't.

 

In other words: No, a vertical side bar would not make more sense than the current layout.

The whole "Prefer to take away horizontal space because there's more of it!" argument that has been repeatedly brought up on the forums, is based on the fallacious assumption that both dimensions are equally valuable for the actual game world scene. They're not.

 

Not to mention that in a party-based game, having the portraits next to each other looks much better than having them underneath each other. More like a "group photo", rather than 6 separate ones. It makes them "come alive" much more, and makes it easier to emotionally connect with them on a role-playing level. And makes it more convenient to interact with the portraits using the mouse, for selecting characters or issuing actions.

 

An L or U-shape layout would only be catering to BG/BG2 nostalgia, it would not be functionally or aesthetically superior to a bottom bar.

 

(That's not to say that the current layout is great  - as others have already pointed out, the central "buttons" block takes up far too much space considering its relative uselessness, and the combat log is too small and too side-lined. But all of that could be fixed within the confines of a bottom bar layout.)

[Quantics]

 

The whole "Prefer to take away horizontal space because there's more of it!" argument that has been repeatedly brought up on the forums, is based on the fallacious assumption that both dimensions are equally valuable for the actual game world scene. They're not.

 

 

 

In a computer game were you have to move your characters across a map – and by 'across' i mean often upwards or downwards (see most IWD maps for instance), vertical space becomes extremely valuable as well. 

 

I think in the end it's a matter of personal taste. But either way I think I could get used to either options...

[Hiro Protagonist II]

In a computer game were you have to move your characters across a map – and by 'across' i mean often upwards or downwards (see most IWD maps for instance), vertical space becomes extremely valuable as well. 

 

I think in the end it's a matter of personal taste. But either way I think I could get used to either options...

 

Trying to figure out how Facebook lite figures into IWD maps.

[BrainMuncher]

Sorry Ineth but I have to disagree with basically everything you just said.

 

I still want an L shape. Horizontal space is the most, so a vertical bar makes sense...

 

Yes modern monitors have more horizontal space than vertical, but that's because that extra horizontal space is needed to make a three-dimensional or isometric scene (be it a movie or a pre-rendered game world) immersive and pleasant to look at.

 

I'm not sure why you find the narrow, wide shape more immersive and pleasant. That seems strange to me. It's fine that you do, but it's also entirely subjective.

 

That's why modern cinema productions tend to use super-wide aspect ratios (even wider than the 16:9 of modern computer screens). Go and rent a straight-to-TV movie or series from the 80's or 90's some time (when they used 4:3), and watch it on a modern device - it's almost painful to watch. Otoh watching a movie that is too wide for the 16:9 monitor, is not grating in the same way.

Movies started using cinemascope (2.4:1) in the 1950s. So while it's correct to say that it is modern because it is the predominant shape for movies today, it's not exactly new. Also these shapes aren't so much wide as they are short. The film itself is much closer to square or 4:3, and the top and bottom are cropped off to create the shortscreen look.

Growing up in the 80s I've watched many TV shows and movies in 4:3 format. It was not, and is not painful at all.

Perhaps the most "immersive" and "majestic" cinema format available today is imax, which is roughly 4:3.

 

The same applies to games - the actual game world scene needs much more width than height in order to look majestic and pleasant. A side bar takes away from that. A bottom bar doesn't.

I think you can make a much better case for movies being short that video games. The view vector of a camera in a movie for the most part is parallel to the ground, basically the same as how a human head would be oriented when standing. So a lot of the time all you really lose when cropping the picture is excess sky and ground, and you focus the framing onto the important parts of the picture - usually the head and torso of the speaking actors.

The situation in a top-down game is entirely different, and it makes much more sense from a functionality and usability perspective to have a squarer viewport.

A prime example of this is the game Path of Exile. It is a game similar to diablo 2 (which was made when 4:3 was ubiquitous). They went with a bottom UI bar, and also a lower view angle than diablo. This combined with the wider, narrower shape of contemporary displays means that there is a severe visibility problem to the "south" (bottom of screen). So whenever you are required to go south, usability plummets - the view distance is reduced to only a fraction of what it is when going north or east/west. Functionally, the best place for the UI in that game would have been the top of the screen, but I guess they either didn't think of that, or didn't like the aesthetics.

Most 3D games avoid this by rotating the camera to point in the direction you're going, but with a fixed top-down camera this isn't possible and creates weird asymmetries in usability.

 

In other words: No, a vertical side bar would not make more sense than the current layout.

The whole "Prefer to take away horizontal space because there's more of it!" argument that has been repeatedly brought up on the forums, is based on the fallacious assumption that both dimensions are equally valuable for the actual game world scene. They're not.

Again I disagree. One type of game where I would agree height is not very important is driving games, since tracks are usually more or less flat. However in most other types of games height is valuable, especially in top-down games, and especially those top-down games with a fixed camera.

 

Not to mention that in a party-based game, having the portraits next to each other looks much better than having them underneath each other. More like a "group photo", rather than 6 separate ones. It makes them "come alive" much more, and makes it easier to emotionally connect with them on a role-playing level. And makes it more convenient to interact with the portraits using the mouse, for selecting characters or issuing actions.

Well you are entitled to your opinion, however personally I don't find that the location of portraits affects my emotional connection with the characters in any way.

 

An L or U-shape layout would only be catering to BG/BG2 nostalgia, it would not be functionally or aesthetically superior to a bottom bar.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss this as pure nostalgia. I believe their are valid usability arguments. Edited January 27, 2015 by BrainMuncher

[Quantics]

 

In a computer game were you have to move your characters across a map – and by 'across' i mean often upwards or downwards (see most IWD maps for instance), vertical space becomes extremely valuable as well. 

 

I think in the end it's a matter of personal taste. But either way I think I could get used to either options...

 

Trying to figure out how Facebook lite figures into IWD maps.

 

 

Haha I'm so sorry. Copy-Paste fail. 

 

Here's the pic I wanted to link to: 

http://www.gamebanshee.com/icewinddaleii/walkthrough/chulttemple.php

[Luckmann]

God, I remember that map. It's a stunning work of art in terms of managing to squeeze in a ridiculous amount of stuff in a confined space. It fills the available space almost perfectly. It's kinda terrible, really, but I can't help but to be impressed.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

As a 'customer' for the Solid UI I would like to throw out some preferences for how it is designed/implemented.

 

Here is a picture of Kaz mucking around with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't mind if you could go further and segment the below icons. I didn't arrange the icons correctly, but you could have the combat icons to the left and the non-combat icons like Settings, Map and Stronghold icons to the right. Or something like that.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Someone should quickly call Larian and tell them they did it all wrong:

 

As much as I don't care for floaty stuff, I like this more than the PoE screenshots. Simply having the characters in an eyeview rather than at the bottom is a major boon all by itself. Get rid of the map (don't need it onscreen in a IE-game), the top icons (no turnbased), just move the characters more to the side... and have a sleek bottom bar...

 

Yeah, I think that would do fine, more so than a humongeous bottom bar where I have to make my eyes go down all the time to check my people's status rather than just in a human's periphial vision.

[Luckmann]

The fact of the matter is that our eyes are adapted to going left-to-right (X) rather than up-to-down (Y). Our peripheral vision is extremely limited on the Y-Axis while it's fairly extensive on the X-axis. This makes it annoying and cumbersome to constantly move our eyes to the action (everywhere except bottom, including the top) to the menus (the very bottom).

 

I didn't give it much thought until Hassat Hunter's post above me, but that's probably why I don't like the current UI. The eye's natural resting point isn't dead centre as you would expect, it is actually just slightly above and slightly to the right of the centre; this is likely why this very forum is modelled like it is, and why most games favour having "at a glance"-information to the left; having it to the right means that it interferes with the primary area (the field of battle or whatever), and having it to the left allows it to be right there in the peripheral vision, easily shifted over to.

 

So I maintain that an L-shape would be the best.

[Cluas]

 

So I maintain that an L-shape would be the best.

 

Well, I like the Lshape too. But the very best thing, would be an option to move the gui around, as you see fit.... Then ALL of us would be happy  

[ruzen]

Some could argue about Developement time wasting (for ex. Conpanion AI, scripts) on this. People shouldnt favor one feature they like and dis the others. 

 

Personally I like the idea as all little details & polishing.

Edited January 28, 2015 by ruzen

[Luckmann]

 

 

So I maintain that an L-shape would be the best.

 

Well, I like the Lshape too. But the very best thing, would be an option to move the gui around, as you see fit.... Then ALL of us would be happy  

 

 

This I would actually consider an absolute given with the Default UI - it should absolutely be modular, after all, there's even a mod for the beta that allows you to do that very thing, and it really should've been (with a bit more polish) in the main game.

 

That said, I think that'd be hard to do with a Solid UI. With a Solid UI, it's not so easy to just move things around.

[Sensuki]

I wouldn't mind if you could go further and segment the below icons. I didn't arrange the icons correctly, but you could have the combat icons to the left and the non-combat icons like Settings, Map and Stronghold icons to the right. Or something like that.

 

I agree it would be nice if they segmented those pieces too, because then we could move them in the UI mod.

[Hassat Hunter]

Some could argue about Developement time wasting (for ex. Conpanion AI, scripts) on this. People shouldnt favor one feature they like and dis the others. 

 

I'm pretty sure we don't want the artists working on companion AI and scripts. Or maybe that's just me...

Also; I am wondering how exactly a Solid UI should be modular? Solid framework with tradeable interior? (which thus has limitations based on the framework) Cause I can't see any other way that wont look absolutely horrible as result.

[Karkarov]

I'm pretty sure we don't want the artists working on companion AI and scripts. Or maybe that's just me...

Also; I am wondering how exactly a Solid UI should be modular? Solid framework with tradeable interior? (which thus has limitations based on the framework) Cause I can't see any other way that wont look absolutely horrible as result.

What they want is a solid frame for each of the three UI components that simply matches up on each side to any of the other three blocks.  So you could have menu on the left, or right, or middle, and it would still match and look good on both left and right sides regardless of which piece you put there.

[Hassat Hunter]

But it wont if you decide to flip it and instead have it as side-bar than bottombar...

[Karkarov]

But it wont if you decide to flip it and instead have it as side-bar than bottombar...

Obsidian isn't making a sidebar UI.  Modders are going to have to suck it up on that one.

[Luckmann]

 

But it wont if you decide to flip it and instead have it as side-bar than bottombar...

Obsidian isn't making a sidebar UI.  Modders are going to have to suck it up on that one.

 

 

We don't actually know that yet, do we?

 

Because it's entirely possible (albeit unlikely) that they'll take the criticism to heart and make a proper Solid UI rather than the PS:T/IWD2-style UI (IWD2 being the worst offender by far).

[BrainMuncher]

Because it's entirely possible (albeit unlikely) that they'll take the criticism to heart and make a proper Solid UI rather than the PS:T/IWD2-style UI (IWD2 being the worst offender by far).

I thought IWD2 was one of the best, except for being unable to enlarge the log. You could fully customise the hotbar for each character.

[Sensuki]

We don't actually know that yet, do we?

We've known that since 2013 actually.

[Luckmann]

 

Because it's entirely possible (albeit unlikely) that they'll take the criticism to heart and make a proper Solid UI rather than the PS:T/IWD2-style UI (IWD2 being the worst offender by far).

I thought IWD2 was one of the best, except for being unable to enlarge the log. You could fully customise the hotbar for each character.

 

 

The customization of the hotbar was stellar, but it doesn't really fix the issues with the UI itself. That said, that customizable hotbar was so nice, I had completely forgotten about it until you mentioned it. Playing BG2 at the moment again, I almost find myself crying over how annoying the hotbar is. I'm an Assassin and all I use is Stealth, who needs "Trap Finding" and "Thief Skills"? D:

 

 

 

We don't actually know that yet, do we?

We've known that since 2013 actually.

 

 

Really? Have you been prescient since 2013?

[Sensuki]

2012.