Skip to content

If you were Beamdog, would you revert back to the pre-beta UI for BGEE and BG2EE now?

JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,754
edited March 2016 in The Road to v2.0
It's a hypothetical question. The developers have always said that their intent is to make all the EE games (with SoD in mind) consolidated in style.

I see a lot of feedback on the new UI, the code of which comes from SoD into the patches for BGEE and BG2EE. It is becoming one of the most discussed themes here. So, what do you suggest? If you had all the power, what would you do?

Revert back, maybe adding some changes, but not drastical ones? Have in mind that it will mean a step from the consolidation line.
Continue with the new UI? Some players will never agree with the change of the UI, be it because of a nostalgia, because of personal tastes etc.

Improve the new UI based on the feedback? It may look like the best option, really, but in the same time it would mean a lot of additional work should be put into it, a lot of hours of work and subsequent discussions both in the company and with the community.

Anyway, for me one thing is certain - it's not easy to be a developer of an enhanced version of a such iconic game as BG.
  1. If you were Beamdog, would you revert back to the pre-beta UI for BGEE and BG2EE now?111 votes
    1. No, including "I would try to improve the new UI"
      69.37%
    2. Yes, maybe with some changes to the pre-beta UI
      28.83%
    3. Other
        1.80%
«13

Comments

  • KilivitzKilivitz Member Posts: 1,459
    edited March 2016
    The new UI is fine. It's just not there yet because of too many bugs and a lack of polish.

    I don't think there's even a slight chance the devs will go back to the previous UI. I'm willing to bet SoD hasn't had a UI similar to 1.3 BG:EE since several builds (and months) ago.

    It would also be a PR disaster of sorts. I wouldn't want to see them validating the opinion of everyone who's got their panties in a bunch right now.

    By the way: the current state of BG and BG2:EE is not necessarily an indicator of the state of SoD. As far we know the new UI was being backported and may be much more stable in the expansion. Worst case scenario is SoD comes before the patch and whoever doesn't buy it right away has to wait a bit longer for the new features.
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,582
    I didn't vote because I'm not quite sure I understand the options...
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,754
    @Grammarsalad The question is: If you were Beamdog, would you revert back to the pre-beta UI for BGEE and BG2EE now? The possible answers are "No, I wouldn't revert back to it", "Yes, I would revert back", "Oher answer"
  • IchigoRXCIchigoRXC Member Posts: 1,001
    I would work with the new UI and give it more flavour. The user Journey is probably much better, it is just the poor use of space and general style that doesn't quite fit. Just needs a bit of tweaking and I hear it has been done to be more moddable? So surely that's a good thing.
  • GreenWarlockGreenWarlock Member Posts: 1,354
    It is a tough call, but I would persevere and try to land the new UI, with revisions. One of the key things about the new UI is that it is (apparently) much more moddable, which implies that it should be easier to tune the new UI than the old one while seeking the right balance.

    I would also be prepared to push out deadlines (just a little) to get this right, while it is so prominent and polarizing - but I'm not sure how much the requirements of bringing SoD to market dictate the timetable.
  • dluxdlux Member Posts: 13
    Beamdog should release Dragonspear with the old UI (1.3), because the new UI (2.0) is an unfinished mess.

    They can then take their time to finish the new UI and release it as a patch later.
  • dibdib Member Posts: 384
    I don't think the UI should necessarily be reverted to the previous version but the current on definitely looks like it needs some improvements.
  • TalarashaTalarasha Member Posts: 62
    edited March 2016
    There is no sense to drop new ui completely (efforts were made), but I think the best solution is to implement in-game interface switcher. There was a lot of talk about how customizable ui has become - well, I believe nothing will demonstrate that better then an option to change between eerie and account log book styles.
    Btw, it is not without a precedent to have a several dynamically changed guis. HOMM2 have one, controlled by ingame option, as also MM7, which was controlled by plot.
    1.PNG 137.5K
    2.jpg 178.1K
  • BelegCuthalionBelegCuthalion Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 454
    dlux said:

    Beamdog should release Dragonspear with the old UI (1.3), because the new UI (2.0) is an unfinished mess. They can then take their time to finish the new UI and release it as a patch later.

    There likely is no 1.3 ui with dragon spear styling artwork at all, so this is not an option.
  • BelegCuthalionBelegCuthalion Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 454
    edited March 2016
    Talarasha said:

    There is no sense to drop new ui completely (efforts were made), but I think the best solution is to implement in-game interface switcher. There was a lot of talk about how customizable ui has become - well, I believe nothing will demonstrate that better then an option to change between eerie and account log book styles.

    This is 9th hell for testing, bugfixing and developing further, especially in a #.0 version where bugs will be present and small changes to streamline are still very likely to happen. From experience as a designer, interface designer and front-end developer, going that path is a path to chaos, not paradise for every taste.

    What we see in the homm example is change of styling, not layout and functionality. From 1.3 ui and 2.0 ui there is change though, it's not just smashing other artwork on the same skeleton below.
  • AdulAdul Member Posts: 2,002
    edited March 2016
    No sense in going back now. Listen to feedback, improve it, provide more options where necessary. If there's one part of the game where I think putting a lot of effort is justified, it's the GUI. It is the basis upon which your whole experience rests, from your first steps in Candlekeep to the very end of Throne of Bhaal. If the UI is bothersome to use, it will drag down the whole experience.
    Post edited by Adul on
  • TalarashaTalarasha Member Posts: 62
    edited March 2016

    Talarasha said:

    This is 9th hell for testing, bugfixing and developing further, especially in a #.0 version where bugs will be present and small changes to streamline are still very likely to happen. From experience as a designer, interface designer and front-end developer, going that path is a path to chaos, not paradise for every taste.

    From my expirience as an engineer and software developer, if you want make money - you must work for it. It is not a rocket science, it is a reasonable amount of work for product with that price. I don't want to gonna deeper into that kind of discussion, just ask to spare me triviality of "how hard is gonna be".
    it's not just smashing other artwork on the same skeleton below.
    I'm pretty sure it isn't. I know that because all public ui mods not fit into this new skeleton, thank you very much. And it is not known will they be upgraded or abandond. So much for more open and customizable ui, that so far brokes things. I personally think that this breaking-things approach is hostile.
  • BelegCuthalionBelegCuthalion Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 454
    @Talarasha sorry if I stepped on any toe, but ...

    You proposed to provide two different interfaces to please everyone.
    This means branching that part of the game into two different directions, and everything following will be said hell.
    Testing two interfaces: waste of resources.
    Bug reporting and fixing: confusion ahead on both sides.
    Adding new features later: double design work and testing again.
    Being proud about the new interface: yeah ... So convinced of it that we kept the old one around just in case ...
    If those are trivialities to you, then it's because it's so easy to argue against such a split.

    And what you showed with the screen shots of homm is exactly what is not the case here: it's smashing different styles on the same interface. That's easy but does not fit the case here, so why bring it as an example this was done before?

    Modding of games that are still actively maintained always is a pain, that's the nature of things. I can see that currently over at cities skylines ... Mods are endorsed by the devs and they make a good part of the game, but still each time the base gets new options the mods break and every one is crying until seeing the new opportities provided.
    Not breaking mods means not bringing the platform ahead anymore. We can either have this or that, not both now. but once abandoned by beamdog in far future, we will have the state again where only a final official version can be the base for all mods to come then, without any danger to break anymore. I'd love to see this final version ina state where great mods can be done, and I'm willing to wait and see current mods break now and then while the platform gets ahead and more flexible.
  • PeccaPecca Member Posts: 2,215
    Major changes have a tendency to create some buzz, naturally there are disapproving opinions, but the idea of reverting it completely is a little silly. I don't think it's even possible at this point. And I also don't see there is anything really fundamentally wrong with this new GUI, that can't be remedied by further improvement.
  • TalarashaTalarasha Member Posts: 62
    edited March 2016


    And what you showed with the screen shots of homm is exactly what is not the case here: it's smashing different styles on the same interface. That's easy but does not fit the case here, so why bring it as an example this was done before?

    It is your right to think that it is not the case, but for me it is the same thing. I saw how amber ui mod lays at new skeleton, I looked inside, and didn't saw anything that convienced me that it is absolutely different classes of difficulty. So I believe the answer for your question about the reason I brought this screens is already stated above - as a precedent that there are games with this approach.

    This means branching that part of the game into two different directions, and everything following will be said hell.
    Testing two interfaces: waste of resources.
    Bug reporting and fixing: confusion ahead on both sides.
    Adding new features later: double design work and testing again.

    First of all, this ui changes (and honestly, many others) were already waste of resources from my point of view.
    Second, if suddenly proposed idea sounds like hell of a testing, bug reporting etc, than my personal opinion is that is something wrong with development process itself, in part of QA and support. Although there are another probable reason for such fears - architectural. There is one ui variance and there is another, and if swapping them suddenly sounds like a dev/qa/support/extending nightmare - well, than probably they are not so much customizable and mod-friendly as this was stated since EE prelaunch.

    About mod stuff - I believe backward compability is a question of willingness and resources, not some fundamental obstacle, but it just my opinion.
    If you see fit to have a game with 'enhanced edition' label (15 years old, and 4 for a label) where every patch makes you consider, should you patch and ruin your game expirience or stay on non-patched version than it's fine, I totally understand, but for me it's a hostile approach, I am upset about 'breaking things' in 'enchanced edition' title. I'm not go for 1.3 poll option as efforts were made and I'm not go for "try to improve" poll option as it already four years of 'enhancments'. I'm only saying what would be an 'enhancment' for my liking.
  • spacejawsspacejaws Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 389
    The concept of the new UI is a good one. They just need to work on the design of it all to prevent it being an eyesore and think about what details people want to see. Many of us who play Baldurs's Gate arn't afraid of a wall of text. The entire game is a wall of text. Simplifying any aspect of the game should be done with caution.

    Although I would like the option. Even if a more detailed and faithful UI were available as a non-default (legacy UI setting?) selection then I would feel like that caters to both crowds.
  • FlashburnFlashburn Member Posts: 1,847
    If they had to redesign the UI, just use @00zim00 's idea.
  • TarbalTarbal Member Posts: 5
    I'm with Talarasha on this one. Either dump it or leave the option for either in the options menu... I loved the improvements in the character sheet in the enhanced editions, but this new stuff in v2.0 is just bad. It's not just the character sheet and inventory -- the spell sheet is messed up too... I was planning on playing the beta tonight, but was so appalled that I came here to rant instead. I've calmed down a bit now, and if they'd just make the changes everybody has been talking about on here, then it shouldn't be too bad.

    Still, though... reverting would be the best option. No sense in throwing good after bad. The best analogy I can think of is when you get stuck with a real dog of a stock. You've become attached to it, and if you just hang on a little longer, it will make a comeback and everything will be great. In reality, that stock is going down the toilet, and you'd do a lot better if you dumped it and bought something else. The hardest thing in life is throwing away something you dedicated a lot of time to, but it's better for everyone in the end...
  • MonkeyLungsMonkeyLungs Member Posts: 44
    I like the new UI. And I am an old dude that played BG when it was released in '98. It is a LOT different but it just doesn't bother me.
  • aatestaatest Member Posts: 1
    hire some designers eh?
  • StoibsStoibs Member Posts: 66
    edited March 2016
    If I was Beamdog I wouldn't have changed it in the first place because there was absolutely no call or need or want or reason to change something that has worked absolutely fine for close to two decades now at all.
    Of those options though and being put in their shoes right now after the fact that they dropped the ball; yeah obviously I'd change it back in a heartbeat.

    Or at the very least implement a toggle option instead of arbitrarily changing people's favorite game and method of accessing information in our UI's on us for what I deem to be for the worse out of the blue without consent like this.
  • StoibsStoibs Member Posts: 66
    Funnily enough this isn't the first time I've seen someone bring up the 'text blob' and use it as an example of the old one being inferior, when this is ironically one of the major features and implementations that I *miss* from the original design - being able to scroll and see everything I wanted to find with ease and familiarity in one screen with one smooth scrolling motion was preferable to me; and seemingly many others here and for many of my friends too.

    Speaking personally, I do actually think there was nothing wrong with the original and it was fine, otherwise I wouldn't have said it.
    When I straight up struggled and spent an age to find things (Rep, Lore, Thief Skills, etc.) in the current Beta that took me literally seconds to beeline straight to in the classic screen, then yeah I do personally take issue and umbrage with what I deem to be arbitrary changes for the worse here, and express and provide the feedback as such.


    Having 2 complete UIs side by side that are toggable is something that's very hard to do – not because it can't be done, but if you start with that, you have to support both variants (from having a players handbook to bugfixing), you have to implement new features in both variants equally well wich may be easy for one variant and almost impossible for the other interface wise, etc. etc.

    Or, they could just have the classic design that served us well for ~17 years as one option (that obviously wouldn't need any work or updates or bugfixing done to it since... well.. it has worked for 17 years up to now without issue..) and then this new one that they could focus these theoretical patching and features etc. on. I don't see the issue. That seems to be the go-to response when presented with this solution a few times now (Devs did the same retort you did too, I still don't quite understand what if any ongoing bugfixes need to be applied to the original one that haven't already been implemented at this point, making it a moot point to say that it would be harder to work on two)

    At the end of the day, I answered the poll and gave my feelings based on the posed question. If *I* were at Beamdog and in charge with working on unarguably one of my favorite games and franchises in history then I would indeed do it with due diligence and treat both it and the Fans with the respect it deserves, including maintaining what I personally deem as being the better option, hence my answers.
    I'm not Beamdog though, and they've made it adamantly clear that they wish to change these UI's up for some reason in 2.0 (A reason that has yet to actually be made clear to me honestly), so ultimately what they really should just do is go to 00zim00's thread and adopt that design 1:1 to cover all bases.
    It's a compromise I would be happy with I suppose, if change *must* be done for the sake of change for whatever random reason.
  • FranpaFranpa Member Posts: 637
    I think they should stick with the current UI and try to improve it to suite those that are fans of the old UI, or eventually implement some way of switching UI's. It doesn't make much sense to just throw away all the work they've already spent on the current changes.
  • cmk24cmk24 Member Posts: 605
    Stoibs said:

    Funnily enough this isn't the first time I've seen someone bring up the 'text blob' and use it as an example of the old one being inferior...

    This really has to do more with personal taste than anything else, I am not a fan of the 'text blob' myself and never was.
    Stoibs said:

    Or, they could just have the classic design that served us well for ~17 years as one option (that obviously wouldn't need any work or updates or bugfixing done to it since... well.. it has worked for 17 years up to now without issue..) and then this new one that they could focus these theoretical patching and features etc. on. I don't see the issue. That seems to be the go-to response when presented with this solution a few times now (Devs did the same retort you did too, I still don't quite understand what if any ongoing bugfixes need to be applied to the original one that haven't already been implemented at this point, making it a moot point to say that it would be harder to work on two)

    The issue here is Beamdog has completely re-written how the UI talks to the game engine and the code for the v1.3 UI does not work with the new engine. If they wanted to bring back the old interface they would have to re-build it from scratch using the new method. Because of this there are potential for bugs, so if they did this they would have to actively support the code for both UIs.

    The reason they change how the UI works was (if I understand correctly) to make it more mod friendly and more maintainable, in other words, 'future proofing' the code. The old way the UI worked did not leave much wiggle room for what you could do with it, the new way externalizes a large amount of the UI to config files that can be easily changed, updated, and extended upon. As and example, with the old UI code you could never make a movable floating window interface like the current journal has.

  • StoibsStoibs Member Posts: 66
    Common courtesy would dictate that Beamdog should have on hand ready, and pre-prepared a 'mod' for the classic design then if the entire purpose of this change is to be 'mod friendly' (And if they didn't want to keep the original layout for whatever arbitrary reason)
    You said it yourself, they can (re)build what was originally there again, so what's the delay and problem here? They could very much indeed *Do that* then instead of flippantly handwaving this in the FAQ about how 'Modders will probably be able to change it back' and shifting the task to the community to refix broken elements.

    It would only be the polite and respectful thing to do in regards to both the iconic and timeless cult classic game, and the fans who prefer and have been using such a thing for close to two decades afterall, instead of yanking the rug out from everyone and dictating to us change without consent or desire.
    Considering the mere fact that all these topics exist and we are having this very conversation, objectively it means that there is contention and a divide here that doesn't even need to exist and really shouldn't be taking away from the anticipation and hype of SoD.
  • FranpaFranpa Member Posts: 637
    edited March 2016
    From the little I've seen on this Road to v2.0 forum, most people prefer Baldur's Gate v1.3's UI, NOT the original or v2.0 Baldur's Gate UI. A lot of us simply forgot what the original Baldur's Gate UI was like and forgot that it changed in the Enhanced Edition.
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,754
    Dee said:

    improving the current design both visually and functionally is on our list for after v2.0 goes "live".

    This is the main thing. And as Trent promised, new updates won't take too long to be released, if compared to the previous patch system.

    Will the Redmine system be there after the v2.0 is released? It looks to be a very efficient tool.
Sign In or Register to comment.