My old school solid UI mock-up for Pillars of Eternity

[Stun]

Why is that hard and silly. That's how I always did it in the IE-games too...

Well ok, "hard" is an overstatement, since nothing is "hard" in the IE games. But lets do a comparison.

 

1) Clicking one small button on the bottom right of the screen in order to select all.

 

vs.

 

2) Clicking on the game screen, then dragging the mouse and making a highlighted 'square' big enough to envelop everyone in your party. Of course, depending on how scattered your party is on the screen, this can be tricky. And then there's those situations when you think you've gotten everyone with that square but you only managed to select 4 out of 6, and then once you're marching your party forward you notice.... "wait a minute, I didn't get everyone." So you click and drag again, and it dawns on you that your two missing party members aren't actually on the screen anymore so you can't click and drag, so you move your controlled party members back to the uncontrolled ones, then click and drag everyone. Success! You can now move on.

 

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll just click the 'select all' button. It's faster. And less silly.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Stun

[Lephys]

^ Or you could even map it to an extra mouse button (middle click, if you've only got a basic wheel mouse). Even faster and easier.

[Hassat Hunter]

Well ok, "hard" is an overstatement, since nothing is "hard" in the IE games. But lets do a comparison.

You must have not played BG and BG2 at the age of 10 with no 2nd AD&D experience. THAC0? Lower AC is better? And more similar fun... which didn't really made a lot of sense even after reading the manual up on it.

 

And it's really preference.

[mstark]

THAC0? Lower AC is better? 

 

Learning that THAC0 isn't just a type of Mexican food and being confused as to why leather is better than plate pretty much sums up my first few weeks in BG2.

 

(I was 12, and did not know much English)

Edited February 17, 2015 by mstark

[Stun]

 

Well ok, "hard" is an overstatement, since nothing is "hard" in the IE games. But lets do a comparison.

You must have not played BG and BG2 at the age of 10 with no 2nd AD&D experience. THAC0? Lower AC is better? And more similar fun... which didn't really made a lot of sense even after reading the manual up on it.

 

And it's really preference.

 

Correct. I played BG and BG2 at the age of 20-something with zero 2nd edition AD&D experience (I grew up playing 1st edition AD&D). But rule-set intimacy doesn't really matter that much as long as you're a gamer. Because any gamer will know, by instinct, to use the shiniest weapons, the fanciest armor and the most deadly-sounding spells. BG is easy for anyone with just that for knowledge.

 

But what does this have to do with the 'select all' button?

Edited February 17, 2015 by Stun

[Luckmann]

I have something I need to get off my chest. People keep mentioning "THAC0" and "Lower AC is better?".

Baldur's Gate was released in 1998, when I was 12 years old. It blew my mind and I had literally zero experience with PnP, Dungeons & Dragons or the Forgotten Realms, and understanding the basics of THAC0 (which I to this day call "Taco", because I had no idea it meant "To-Hit Armour-Class Zero") and that lower AC was better was never a problem for me. I was 12 years old and although I surely understood english better than most of my peers, we're still talking elementary-grade second language.

I have no idea why people keep citing these things as issues. Yeah, it struck me as odd for about 3 seconds, and then I never once did think of it again. Now, in my later years, I've understood that these things are apparently huge clusterfudges in PnP D&D 2nd Ed., but in the IE games, it's all handled under the hood, and really, I have a much harder time wrapping my head around why this would be an "issue" to people, rather than just concluding that "Yup, negative AC is good, it counts downwards, go figure."

People seem to think that you need some kind of intimate knowledge of the game, know the 2nd Ed. rules and so on and so forth to play BG1, and yeah, I'm sure it helps a bit, but it is in no way or fashion a necessity. You throw a fireball, it explodes, you equip better armour, you get harder to hit (actually, that was way more odd to me, that AC was a simple matter of getting hit or not, no soak or anything).

 

I would argue that the 3.5 Ed. games requires far more knowledge beforehand, because there are far more rules going on "under the hood" that is in your face, what with the Feats and the "only every other ability score point matters" and so on, but it has the benefit of making those things known to the player; but in BG1/2, you didn't need to know those things to figure it out, but somehow every 3.5 Ed. game character turns into a spreadsheet when mapping out a character's life.

Now, I'm not hating on editions here, in the end I know a lot more of 3.5 Ed. than 2nd Ed. even though I've played a mountain more CRPG 2nd Ed. than anything else. But goddamn, THAC0/Negative AC is not a hard thing to grasp in the context of a computer game, it's so ridiculously easy even a child would get it. I know, I used to be one!

[Malekith]

The fact that BG2 could be finished by 10-12 year olds that didn't knew much English nor had AD&D experience speaks for itself.

 

The fact that it's considered convulted and difficult for the average "Adult" gamer tell us more about the average modern gamer than it does for the game.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Malekith

[Karkarov]

The fact that BG2 could be finished by 10-12 year olds that didn't knew much English nor had AD&D experience speaks for itself.

 

The fact that it's considered convulted and difficult for the average "Adult" gamer tell us more about the average modern gamer than it does for the game.

Luckmann is the exception not the rule.  Anyone who insinuates an average 12 year old will have the patience for BG2 is really just mainlining some crack... or really dumb.

[mstark]

I believe that the age poll(s) that were held in the past kinda established that a significant slice of the Eternity forums demographic were actually 10-14 years old in 2000, when BG2 was released.

 

Not that that necessarily means very much for this discussion. We're a special kind of breed.

[Stun]

I have no idea why people keep citing these things as issues.

Because there isn't anything else for the hipsters to cite as issues in the BG's.

 

I mean, what do you expect them to do? Complain that the story sucked? Or the Combat was boring? Or that they couldn't customize and role play their characters? Or that the party-based gameplay was poorly designed? Or any other criteria we judge RPGs on? Nope. They can't gripe about any of those things because the BG games did them all really really well. And they know it. So they're forced to grab their microscopes and scour the 'fine print' to find something that, when described on a message board, doesn't sound too great. And then they blow that tiny little thing massively out of proportion and pretend that it ruined the experience or made everything 'hard and confusing'

Edited February 17, 2015 by Stun

[Abel]

The fact that BG2 could be finished by 10-12 year olds that didn't knew much English nor had AD&D experience speaks for itself.

 

The fact that it's considered convulted and difficult for the average "Adult" gamer tell us more about the average modern gamer than it does for the game.

 

Great, great post. It made me smile. You're so, so right! I guess i was 17 when BG1 came true. I didn't had any D&D experience either. That's true that the THAC0 mechanisms seemed weird to me at first sight, but strange enough, to me it's actually a good point of the game. Since i loved the whole game, i felt concerned and interested in the matter of how these mechanisms actually worked. Call me weirdo, but it was actualy compelling and great fun to figure all the ruleset out. Surely, if the game was dull, it would have been a pain in the ass, and i wouldn't have cared very much, but the game was great, and i was hooked. Plus, i felt that this weird way to rule AC, to hit rolls, save rolls (...) were in fact very unique to the BG series. I prefer the BG ruleset than 3rd edition games ruleset. Maybe i think that 3rd Ed in NWN has nothing specific to D&D anymore, or maybe i'm just nostalgic here.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Abel

[Ineth]

Well I, for one, failed quite miserably to complete BG2 when I first tried it as a teenager with no prior cRPG experience.

 

I vaguely remember spending a perceived eternity in Irenicus' Dungeon before finding my way out. And progressing through a Beholder cave (probably the Unseeing Eye one) by continuously sending summons into the fog of war, because i had no idea how to beat them without such cheese tactics. And repeatedly being murdered by vampires in the streets of Athkatla. I also vaguely remember struggling with the inventory/loot/store system and somehow loosing an important artifact (probably dropped it somewhere by accident), which was frustrating and at some point I just stopped playing the game. I don't think I even made it out of chapter 2...

 

 

Later I player IWD2 with the help of online guides and then tried BG2 again, and this time it was fine (and fun) and I completed it multiple times since then, including with mods (most components from SCS and some from Tactics) to increase the challenge.

 

Thus I'm not as eager as some of the others here, to ridicule st00pid n00bs...

Once you get the hang of these kinds of games they become easy, but before then they can be daunting.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Ineth

[Hassat Hunter]

I mean, what do you expect them to do? Complain that the story sucked? Or the Combat was boring? Or that they couldn't customize and role play their characters? Or that the party-based gameplay was poorly designed? Or any other criteria we judge RPGs on? Nope. They can't gripe about any of those things because the BG games did them all really really well. And they know it. So they're forced to grab their microscopes and scour the 'fine print' to find something that, when described on a message board, doesn't sound too great. And then they blow that tiny little thing massively out of proportion and pretend that it ruined the experience or made everything 'hard and confusing'

Or maybe, just maybe, those concept did confuse poor 10-year old me.

You know, sometimes a banana is just a banana.

 

Never-the-less I managed to get to the final chapter, even if in combat I pretty much mucked about.

 

BG2 wasn't so forgiving with immunities, insta-kill spells, wizards with 5+ defenses on auto-cast and as 12-year old I doubt I made it past the Asylum. And funnily enough if I replay it now, I kinda quit at the same point since Chapter II is fun but the Underdark is just a drag, and it goes further down from there.

 

EDIT: Also, unlike Luckmann, I didn't just shrugged it off but looked it up in the manual. Perhaps that was a mistake...

Edited February 17, 2015 by Hassat Hunter

[Luckmann]

[...]

 

EDIT: Also, unlike Luckmann, I didn't just shrugged it off but looked it up in the manual. Perhaps that was a mistake...

 

 

I never shrug anything off. I'm the man of a thousand chips. And I always read the manual.

[Grotesque]

new weapon sets slots layout & design

 

 

 

 

 

Each slot represents one set.

The set on slot II is the one currently in use.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Grotesque

[Hassat Hunter]

I'd prefered the old one, seeing both hands. But I guess it would be useful if anyone ever decided to take the additional quick-slot for whatever reason...

[Grotesque]

I'd prefered the old one, seeing both hands. But I guess it would be useful if anyone ever decided to take the additional quick-slot for whatever reason...

 

one reason

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF4pmJTX39E#t=48

 

 

where possible, one click anything

Edited February 18, 2015 by Grotesque

[Lephys]

Speaking of weapon slots... I REALLY wish they just linked items instead of physically storing them. What I mean is, if you want Set 1 to be a Rapier and a Small Shield, and Set 2 to be a Mace and a Small Shield, you have to have two small shields. When, really, you should be able to click "Set 2" and have it decide what needs to be equipped to achieve that combination. In this example, you'd simply put away your Rapier and draw your Mace, the Small Shield conveniently already resting in your other hand's grasp.

 

Annnnnywho, sorry. Side-rant. I like that mockup, ^_^

[Zack Fair]

Speaking of weapon slots... I REALLY wish they just linked items instead of physically storing them. What I mean is, if you want Set 1 to be a Rapier and a Small Shield, and Set 2 to be a Mace and a Small Shield, you have to have two small shields. When, really, you should be able to click "Set 2" and have it decide what needs to be equipped to achieve that combination. In this example, you'd simply put away your Rapier and draw your Mace, the Small Shield conveniently already resting in your other hand's grasp.

 

Annnnnywho, sorry. Side-rant. I like that mockup, ^_^

Wait, they haven't fixed this yet?

[Havelok]

new weapon sets slots layout & design

 

Each slot represents one set.

The set on slot II is the one currently in use.

 

 

Looks amazing man! Seriously, I would play with that UI in a heartbeat. And reccomend it to my roomate who is obsessed with BG. There would be buckets of drool if he saw this. 

[Grotesque]

 

new weapon sets slots layout & design

 

Each slot represents one set.

The set on slot II is the one currently in use.

 

 

Looks amazing man! Seriously, I would play with that UI in a heartbeat. And reccomend it to my roomate who is obsessed with BG. There would be buckets of drool if he saw this. 

 

 

Well, others say it looks like a piece of $hit. Be it so.

 

But one in particular also said that it would take him in reality 2-3 hours to implement it (forget about what Adam Brennecke said. we've been lied to)

Too bad this prodigy in the field of programming has a distaste for it.

I guess we'll have to kickstart it and rely on Adam  to slowly mod it into the game in a couple of weeks. 

)

 

 

 

EDIT: just to refresh your memory   )

 

Adam Brennecke, on 13 Feb 2015 - 08:31 AM, said:

 

Looks cool! The next challenge and suggestion would do a mockup at 1280x720 and 2560x1440 to see what it looks at low/high resolution. (We also do a 4:3 low res, but I forget the dimensions Kaz uses.) You might encounter some interesting problems.

We won't be doing anything this substantial for our solid UI. It could be a couple of weeks of programming to implement this.

Thanks for sharing!

 

EDIT 2: If the lead programmer says it would take a couple of weeks to implement this UI, I wonder how much time would take Tim Cain to implement it.  

 

Being a fanboy of Tim Cain, I would be inclined to say  that  it would take him  one hour to implement it but deep down in my soul I know he would not beat the time of the "prodigy programmer boy" )

Edited February 19, 2015 by Grotesque

[Karkarov]

Well, others say it looks like a piece of $hit. Be it so.

Anyone who says it looks like **** is being stupid, it looks good.  That being said I have already briefly touched on why I would not use the UI in game and am very happy with the direction Obsidian went.

[Grotesque]

Anyone who says it looks like **** is being stupid, it looks good.  

 

 

As a matter of fact, that's not what makes someone stupid.

 

On the other hand, saying that you can easily implement this type of UI in 2-3 hours, does make you stupid

[Karkarov]

 

Anyone who says it looks like **** is being stupid, it looks good.  

 

As a matter of fact, that's not what makes someone stupid.

 

On the other hand, saying that you can easily implement this type of UI in 2-3 hours, does make you stupid

...... Who are you replying to?  I didn't say jack all about how long it would take to implement your UI concept.  I said I am happy Obisidian went in the direction they did and I like the UI they made.

[Grotesque]

 

 

Anyone who says it looks like **** is being stupid, it looks good.  

 

As a matter of fact, that's not what makes someone stupid.

 

On the other hand, saying that you can easily implement this type of UI in 2-3 hours, does make you stupid

...... Who are you replying to?  I didn't say jack all about how long it would take to implement your UI concept.  I said I am happy Obisidian went in the direction they did and I like the UI they made.

 

rephrase:

 

On the other hand, someone saying that can easily implement this type of UI in 2-3 hours, does make that someone stupid.