All you do is pass the string through a split function to chop anything before and after the '\n' into two new strings the rejoin them with ': ' instead of the \n
Because the "Continue" button is now inside the conversation window (outside the text frame but inside the frame of the window), it no longer makes sense to hide it when there are response options available. I would suggest, instead, that if there are responses for the player to select, the Continue button would simply be "greyed out", like so:
The reason for this is simple: if you hide the button, you have to change the height of the text frame based on the presence or absence of responses--or you have a gap at the bottom of the window that doesn't belong. If you show the button but disable it, you communicate to the player that they cannot continue until they choose one of the responses--and you don't have to change the text frame's height.
I’d prefer that it was on the same line, as it was before. But it’s not important enough to me to quibble about if others want it on the line above.
Here is one improvement I would personally appreciate, if it could be made without changing how everything else worked in ver. 1.3.
I would like to be able to increase the size of the window further then I can in ver. 1.3. As it is now I can click 3 times, for small, medium or large. Not a big thing, I just thought I would mention it.
Does having it on the inside affect how much text can be shown in the dialogue area at once?
Not the way it's set up now, no. The first thing I did was draw a rectangle around the existing text box in one of @argent77 's 4:3 screenshots; that ensures that we have exactly the same amount of text real estate in the mock design as we have in the published build.
The buttons for Continue/End Dialogue have always been below the conversation window; all I've done is draw a box to contain them so they're not floating.
@Mr2150 is right--the end design is 99% the same as v1.3's layout; the differences are only aesthetic at this point.
Because the "Continue" button is now inside the conversation window (outside the text frame but inside the frame of the window), it no longer makes sense to hide it when there are response options available. I would suggest, instead, that if there are responses for the player to select, the Continue button would simply be "greyed out", like so:
The reason for this is simple: if you hide the button, you have to change the height of the text frame based on the presence or absence of responses--or you have a gap at the bottom of the window that doesn't belong. If you show the button but disable it, you communicate to the player that they cannot continue until they choose one of the responses--and you don't have to change the text frame's height.
Both those options are very simple to do in the UI. But I think the former makes more sense... greying the button out rather than hiding it. It also stops it suddenly appearing out of nowhere and is consistent with other buttons (eg think how the level up button is greyed out until you can use it).
It would also help with any implementation in BG2 as the border there would likely be a little more ornate (to fit that theme) and an empty space wouldn't look good, whereas a greyed out button would.
I’d prefer that it was on the same line, as it was before. But it’s not important enough to me to quibble about if others want it on the line above.
Here is one improvement I would personally appreciate, if it could be made without changing how everything else worked in ver. 1.3.
I would like to be able to increase the size of the window further then I can in ver. 1.3. As it is now I can click 3 times, for small, medium or large. Not a big thing, I just thought I would mention it.
In v2.x you can resize the window by dragging the top edge of the window up and down. I'm assuming that functionality would remain in the mock design--although I've also heard some comments that it's not obvious for newer players who might want or need to make use of it.
Show/Hide History button: This feels like clutter, as you can simply drag the scroll bar down. Perhaps hidden options, such as clicking the portrait or pressing a hotkey, would be nice to have, but I think that adding the button only makes things more messy.
Separator above conversation: I personally quite like a separator above the conversation. Heck, I'd love for them to remain in the combat log even after the conversation has closed, at the top and bottom of each conversation. However, seems like I'm a minority in that, so alternatively, I'd like to ask for a bit of a gap at the top and bottom of each conversation, something like 2 blank lines would help quite a bit.
Text on newline: I think it looks better to have the text start on the same line as the character name, but I think this is just personal preference, and even then, doesn't really matter much.
Resizing: Please do keep the free resize function from 2.0! Though I guess making it a little more obvious that it can be dragged up or down can be useful for some people.
I woke up to 60+ emails for this post so forgive me if this idea has been brought up or suggested but rejected. I did quickly read though but I may have missed it.
Since the space on the left is wasted space have you thought about moving the buttons under where the picture is? That way it gives even more space for text that isn't being taken up by the continue or history button? Likewise this would help with larger conversations as you will be able to see more on screen at once.
I moved the continue to the top so that its not near the history button as someone suggested so people dont miss click it. You could even put the Continue button above the portrait if you dont want to button to move around when there isnt a portrait on screen.
Overall im more suggesting just using that space effectively. It still allows for easily scaling of the text box, dosnt make all the buttons feel randomly placed, and gives you more screen space for conversation text without the excess of wasted space around the current suggestion of where the continue button is.
I've been thinking about the portrait, and the thing is, in quite a few conversations, you're talking with more than a single character, like 2 NPCs talking at the same time (the 2 dudes in the Feldepost Inn), or one of your Companions interjects while talking to an NPC.
In those cases, having one clear portrait of the last person that talked feels out of place. It's one if the things that I don't like about the Dragonspear UI. It makes me feel like I'm responding to the Companion that interjected, rather than the character I was originally talking to.
By including the portraits in the dialogue box, rather than as a separate portrait, would it be possible to display multiple portraits?
@00zim00 It's been decided (or sort of) not to include the "hide history" button at all, as "the dialog window in pre-2.0 and the original games allowed to quickly jump to the current conversation state by clicking on the portrait (or placeholder if there is no portrait). There is no real need for an additional button".
As for moving the "continue" button to the left, it may immediately cause a reaction like @Ravenslight had - it isn't "baldursgatey", i.e. old versions had this button below the window and it worked like that for 15+ years, players were happy and, most important, they got used to it. I imagine even a hypotetical post like "where's the continue button? It has been there for ** years, and now I can't see it"....
I guess these things happen because BG is such an old game.
But of course your argument that the space on the left is somewhat a wasted space can be looked at.
As already mentioned before, the best place for the "Continue" button is probably below the conversation text, or it will break the reading flow. Furthermore, the text will change into "End Dialogue" when the conversation is about to end, which wouldn't fit into the narrow space under the portrait anymore.
Different languages may also cause issues. For example, the German translation of "Continue" is "Spiel fortsetzen", which doesn't fit under the portrait either.
While I agree it should be under the dialogue window, it would be nice if it were attached to the dialogue window with some kind of image, like bars that connect it to the bottom of the dialogue window, or a frame that sits around it.
While I agree it should be under the dialogue window, it would be nice if it were attached to the dialogue window with some kind of image, like bars that connect it to the bottom of the dialogue window, or a frame that sits around it.
Am I interpreting this wrong? I thought @Dee ‘s mock up set both the picture and the continue button inside a frame that also contained the dialogue box.
While I agree it should be under the dialogue window, it would be nice if it were attached to the dialogue window with some kind of image, like bars that connect it to the bottom of the dialogue window, or a frame that sits around it.
Am I interpreting this wrong? I thought @Dee ‘s mock up set both the picture and the continue button inside a frame that also contained the dialogue box.
Correct; the latest mock design shows the Continue button and the speaker's portrait in the same container as the text box.
I still don't see it working to have one fixed speaker's container, as it really looks like you're addressing that person, which quite often is not the case. It's confusing.
I'd much rather see the portraits in the text box, scrolling along with the text box.
When you have more then one other NPC in a conversation with the PC, the portrait should switch to whoever the current speaker is. Isn’t this how @Dee has it now?
If you mean the portrait should scroll up with the text, I think that would be terrible.
Yeah, but say I'm talking to this farmer NPC... Then Imoen inserts and says something funny just before my option to reply to the farmer comes up. If it shows only one portrait, that of the most recent speaker, it shows Imoen, and thus it looks like you're addressing Imoen with your reply, not the farmer.
Having the portraits inside the text field would make it more clear it's a conversation between multiple people. They would also stand out more if you're backtracking through the logs.
Once the dialogue window comes up and a conversation has begun, only the NPCs that have been written in, coded into that dialogue can speak until the conversation is done. Unless there is a bug of some kind, no other NPC should be able to pop in. As each speakers part comes up the portrait changes to that of the current speaker.
Occasionally, once a timer runs out and an NPC, like from a mod is supposed to start a conversation, it can interrupt a conversation with a quest NPC, for example. But that is a bug type thing, not intentional.
First off, I use the "pause on all dialogues" option, so that can't really happen for me.
Second, certain dialogues are written that if you talk to a certain NPC, one of your party members chips in and makes a comment about the NPC you're talking to or the topic being discussed. Often, they reply after the NPC has spoken and before you get to reply, so they were the last ones to have talked, even though you're actually replying to the NPC, not the party member.
First off, I use the "pause on all dialogues" option, so that can't really happen for me.
Second, certain dialogues are written that if you talk to a certain NPC, one of your party members chips in and makes a comment about the NPC you're talking to or the topic being discussed. Often, they reply after the NPC has spoken and before you get to reply, so they were the last ones to have talked, even though you're actually replying to the NPC, not the party member.
It's a little weird, but if your responses are listed immediately after the interjection, you're responding to the interjecting NPC, even if the response is directed to someone else.
I'm responding AFTER the interjecting NPC, but not TO the interjecting NPC.
This all felt fine and natural when the portraits were icons in the dialogue window, as the portraits closely matched the text.
In Dragonspear UI, instead of having portraits as icons in the dialogue window, the portrait of the last person to have spoken is displayed in large next to the dialogue window. It feels jarring whenever it's a party member that interjected a small line, but is not the target of my reponse.
I'm worried that the same will happen in the default UI, if the portrait is being separated outside the text field. I'm personally not convinced that is the way to go, and would much rather see the portraits inside the text field, scrolling along with the matching spoken text.
I don't think it has - but he does have a point @Dee
I think @Thels is making the following point - here's an example:
You meet Viconia for the first time in BGEE - I can't remember the exact wording but the conversation goes something like this:
Help me please 1. OK we will help 2. No we won't help you (Viconia's Portrait is displayed)
Then a flaming fist walks up and says something like this...
"She is evil you must help me kill her." (No portrait is displayed)
Then Viconia says "No you can't let him have me" (Viconia's Portrait is displayed)
Then the options are: 1. Yes you can have her, and we will help 2. No you will have to go through us 3. It's not our problem, Fisty McFist, we are going to Ikea for meatballs. (Viconia's portrait is still displayed)
So you reply to the Fist but as Viconia is the last one to have spoken it is her portrait displayed. This is an engine issue and not a dialogue issue.
Thels is proposing that aligning the text with the portrait would make it clear that the interjection is Viconia's but you are still talking to the Fist.
I know; what I'm saying is that internally, at that point it's not a conversation between you and the fist; it's between you and Viconia. There would be no way to tell the engine "the Flaming Fist Mercenary is the one we're talking to here" because that's not how the dialogue system works in the engine.
Well now I’m confused again. I thought @Dee ‘s mock up would work the same as it did in versions of the game before SoD was introduced. Having not played conversations in SoD I don’t know how different they may be working then previous versions @Thels .
I do know that I don’t want the portraits moving around. Inside or outside the window, the portrait of the current speaker should be stationary. In conversation this portrait should switch to the current speaker. It doesn’t matter whether or not a party member pipes in temporarily with a comment because the focus of the conversation always goes back to the original speaker before the player can either continue the conversation with the continue button, or pick a response if they are given that option.
The simplest way I can put this is, it should remain the way it was in ver. 1.3 and earlier.
If anything the text options would be easier to fix:
... Then Viconia says "No you can't let him have me" (Viconia's Portrait is displayed)
Then the options are: 1. I'm sorry, love, we aren't helping you... Fisty, she's all yours. 2. No - we will make sure he can't have you 3. It's not our problem, Vici, we are still going to Ikea for meatballs. (Viconia's portrait is still displayed)
@Dee: Of course, I'm not expecting this to be changed and for the Flaming Fist portrait to be displayed instead. That's just not how the current dialog system works, and adjusting it is not in any way reliably feasible.
However, what I personally noticed is, as long as they're small icons inside the text window, it doesn't bother me, as the portraits are then attached to that specific text, indicating that that portrait spoke that bit of text.
By separating the portrait from the text, and placing it somewhere globally (which is what happens in DSUI, and seems to be the current plan for the base dialogue window), the portrait no longer indicates specifically who spoke those lines of text, but instead appears to be the character you are currently facing and talking to.
Comments
All you do is pass the string through a split function to chop anything before and after the '\n' into two new strings the rejoin them with ': ' instead of the \n
Because the "Continue" button is now inside the conversation window (outside the text frame but inside the frame of the window), it no longer makes sense to hide it when there are response options available. I would suggest, instead, that if there are responses for the player to select, the Continue button would simply be "greyed out", like so:
The reason for this is simple: if you hide the button, you have to change the height of the text frame based on the presence or absence of responses--or you have a gap at the bottom of the window that doesn't belong. If you show the button but disable it, you communicate to the player that they cannot continue until they choose one of the responses--and you don't have to change the text frame's height.
I’d prefer that it was on the same line, as it was before. But it’s not important enough to me to quibble about if others want it on the line above.
Here is one improvement I would personally appreciate, if it could be made without changing how everything else worked in ver. 1.3.
I would like to be able to increase the size of the window further then I can in ver. 1.3. As it is now I can click 3 times, for small, medium or large. Not a big thing, I just thought I would mention it.
The buttons for Continue/End Dialogue have always been below the conversation window; all I've done is draw a box to contain them so they're not floating.
@Mr2150 is right--the end design is 99% the same as v1.3's layout; the differences are only aesthetic at this point.
It would also help with any implementation in BG2 as the border there would likely be a little more ornate (to fit that theme) and an empty space wouldn't look good, whereas a greyed out button would.
Separator above conversation: I personally quite like a separator above the conversation. Heck, I'd love for them to remain in the combat log even after the conversation has closed, at the top and bottom of each conversation. However, seems like I'm a minority in that, so alternatively, I'd like to ask for a bit of a gap at the top and bottom of each conversation, something like 2 blank lines would help quite a bit.
Text on newline: I think it looks better to have the text start on the same line as the character name, but I think this is just personal preference, and even then, doesn't really matter much.
Resizing: Please do keep the free resize function from 2.0! Though I guess making it a little more obvious that it can be dragged up or down can be useful for some people.
Since the space on the left is wasted space have you thought about moving the buttons under where the picture is?
That way it gives even more space for text that isn't being taken up by the continue or history button? Likewise this would help with larger conversations as you will be able to see more on screen at once.
I moved the continue to the top so that its not near the history button as someone suggested so people dont miss click it. You could even put the Continue button above the portrait if you dont want to button to move around when there isnt a portrait on screen.
Overall im more suggesting just using that space effectively. It still allows for easily scaling of the text box, dosnt make all the buttons feel randomly placed, and gives you more screen space for conversation text without the excess of wasted space around the current suggestion of where the continue button is.
In those cases, having one clear portrait of the last person that talked feels out of place. It's one if the things that I don't like about the Dragonspear UI. It makes me feel like I'm responding to the Companion that interjected, rather than the character I was originally talking to.
By including the portraits in the dialogue box, rather than as a separate portrait, would it be possible to display multiple portraits?
As for moving the "continue" button to the left, it may immediately cause a reaction like @Ravenslight had - it isn't "baldursgatey", i.e. old versions had this button below the window and it worked like that for 15+ years, players were happy and, most important, they got used to it. I imagine even a hypotetical post like "where's the continue button? It has been there for ** years, and now I can't see it"....
I guess these things happen because BG is such an old game.
But of course your argument that the space on the left is somewhat a wasted space can be looked at.
Different languages may also cause issues. For example, the German translation of "Continue" is "Spiel fortsetzen", which doesn't fit under the portrait either.
I'd much rather see the portraits in the text box, scrolling along with the text box.
If you mean the portrait should scroll up with the text, I think that would be terrible.
Having the portraits inside the text field would make it more clear it's a conversation between multiple people. They would also stand out more if you're backtracking through the logs.
Occasionally, once a timer runs out and an NPC, like from a mod is supposed to start a conversation, it can interrupt a conversation with a quest NPC, for example. But that is a bug type thing, not intentional.
First off, I use the "pause on all dialogues" option, so that can't really happen for me.
Second, certain dialogues are written that if you talk to a certain NPC, one of your party members chips in and makes a comment about the NPC you're talking to or the topic being discussed. Often, they reply after the NPC has spoken and before you get to reply, so they were the last ones to have talked, even though you're actually replying to the NPC, not the party member.
This all felt fine and natural when the portraits were icons in the dialogue window, as the portraits closely matched the text.
In Dragonspear UI, instead of having portraits as icons in the dialogue window, the portrait of the last person to have spoken is displayed in large next to the dialogue window. It feels jarring whenever it's a party member that interjected a small line, but is not the target of my reponse.
I'm worried that the same will happen in the default UI, if the portrait is being separated outside the text field. I'm personally not convinced that is the way to go, and would much rather see the portraits inside the text field, scrolling along with the matching spoken text.
I think @Thels is making the following point - here's an example:
You meet Viconia for the first time in BGEE - I can't remember the exact wording but the conversation goes something like this:
Help me please
1. OK we will help
2. No we won't help you
(Viconia's Portrait is displayed)
Then a flaming fist walks up and says something like this...
"She is evil you must help me kill her." (No portrait is displayed)
Then Viconia says "No you can't let him have me" (Viconia's Portrait is displayed)
Then the options are:
1. Yes you can have her, and we will help
2. No you will have to go through us
3. It's not our problem, Fisty McFist, we are going to Ikea for meatballs.
(Viconia's portrait is still displayed)
So you reply to the Fist but as Viconia is the last one to have spoken it is her portrait displayed. This is an engine issue and not a dialogue issue.
Thels is proposing that aligning the text with the portrait would make it clear that the interjection is Viconia's but you are still talking to the Fist.
I do know that I don’t want the portraits moving around. Inside or outside the window, the portrait of the current speaker should be stationary. In conversation this portrait should switch to the current speaker. It doesn’t matter whether or not a party member pipes in temporarily with a comment because the focus of the conversation always goes back to the original speaker before the player can either continue the conversation with the continue button, or pick a response if they are given that option.
The simplest way I can put this is, it should remain the way it was in ver. 1.3 and earlier.
...
Then Viconia says "No you can't let him have me" (Viconia's Portrait is displayed)
Then the options are:
1. I'm sorry, love, we aren't helping you... Fisty, she's all yours.
2. No - we will make sure he can't have you
3. It's not our problem, Vici, we are still going to Ikea for meatballs.
(Viconia's portrait is still displayed)
However, what I personally noticed is, as long as they're small icons inside the text window, it doesn't bother me, as the portraits are then attached to that specific text, indicating that that portrait spoke that bit of text.
By separating the portrait from the text, and placing it somewhere globally (which is what happens in DSUI, and seems to be the current plan for the base dialogue window), the portrait no longer indicates specifically who spoke those lines of text, but instead appears to be the character you are currently facing and talking to.