I think it could be very helpful to the UI development crew to see how people react to the graphical suggestions done in the mock ups here.
It also makes it easier to understand the concepts people are trying to convey if these details are included. Not all of us think the same way. It certainly has made it easier for me to understand.
I can look at a piece of stone and see the druid and his staff that is hiding there. It is much harder for me to visualize some of the ideas that people have had here without any context.
I can empathize, but the colors that look good on one game (BG:EE, for instance) might look out of place on another (BGII:EE). All four games (BG:EE, BG:SoD, BGII:EE, and IWD:EE) use the same exact layout (or nearly the same layout, in the case of Icewind Dale) for these screens; it's better to use a neutral space, with neutral iconography and colors, to represent the questions of layout.
Otherwise you may very well end up with a design that looks great for BGII:EE but terrible for Siege of Dragonspear.
My recommendation, as always, is to work with a neutral aesthetic when discussing layout. If something stands out (like red and green arrows, for instance), then that means that element isn't neutral enough for the discussion.
I'll show you what I mean.
Here's a grey-box with comparison stats.
"Great," you might say, "Except that those arrows look awfully bright and they're distracting."
The solution isn't to replace those arrows with "real art", because this is just a draft proposal. Instead, here's another version, where the arrows have been tweaked to fit in better with the surrounding neutral layout:
All that's been done here is to change the arrows from colored 2D shapes to greyscale 3D objects. They're still placeholders, and they're still different colors to communicate that they're going to be different colors in the final draft. But they're still neutral--which means that the artists aren't expected to use them as a reference for anything other than "arrow pointing up" or "arrow pointing down".
(As an added bonus I combined the two color swatches into one button with two colors on it; having two buttons next to each other that do the same thing is redundant, but there's no reason why you can't have one button with two colors on it.)
The trick is to make the grey boxes interesting enough that they communicate "this is a game" without being so interesting that everyone's attention is drawn to the art instead of the layout.
But the point is, you shouldn't try to paint the walls until you've built the house.
This, so much this. Took the words straight out of my head.
What you're building here is the foundation, the floors, the stairs, and the frame. Every piece of decoration you add to the house before it's finished (carpet, light fixtures, appliances, wallpaper) makes it harder to fix things in the architecture. In fact, it makes it harder to see that those things need fixing in the first place.
The last place I lived was a new apartment complex, gorgeous on the outside, and the inside looked nice too--but as soon as we started living there we noticed that half the cable outlets had no wires in them, the carpet on the stairs wasn't padded, the light fixtures were all slightly off-symmetry. Things that were buried under the pretty exterior, that would have been fixed if it hadn't looked quite so nice on the outside.
Art covers up mistakes. As a playerdesigner, you don't want to cover up mistakes; you want to make the mistakes stand out so that everyone can see them, so that they get fixed, and fixed early.
I actually disagree there, at least in part. Neutral colors are great to plan out layouts with and to focus on basic mechanics, but they can truly fail you when trying to determine how your layout will affect feel and aesthetics. Seeing the new layout as you would actually see it in the game (or a closer representation of it, anyway) can help you with this.
Not saying neutral colors should not be used for layouts, but in my opinion the more finalized-looking mockups are rather useful too.
I do understand what you’re trying to say @Dee I just know that it makes such a big difference once you add the color. An idea that didn’t seem so jarring in a grayscale mockup can suddenly feel totally out of place once in game and in color.
All these details become even more important if your talking about changing all the artwork to look the same for all the games. For instance, and I don’t wish to insult anyone here, but honestly the thought of SoDs current graphics taking over the old style of artwork used in the original games makes me want to cry.
I know, the argument will be made that we can’t know what neat ideas they will use for that. But I the customer have only the evidence that I have been given so far to go on. Judging by what I have been given, the old style has not been given proper consideration.
@Dee said: As a player designer, you don't want to cover up mistakes; you want to make the mistakes stand out so that everyone can see them, so that they get fixed, and fixed early.
Exactly!
And only using grayscale minimizes how things will actually look and feel in game.
I do understand what you’re trying to say @Dee I just know that it makes such a big difference once you add the color. An idea that didn’t seem so jarring in a grayscale mockup can suddenly feel totally out of place once in game and in color.
All these details become even more important if your talking about changing all the artwork to look the same for all the games. For instance, and I don’t wish to insult anyone here, but honestly the thought of SoDs current graphics taking over the old style of artwork used in the original games makes me want to cry.
I know, the argument will be made that we can’t know what neat ideas they will use for that. But I the customer have only the evidence that I have been given so far to go on. Judging by what I have been given, the old style has not been given proper consideration.
I'll say it again--if you don't like the Siege of Dragonspear theme, no amount of layout revision is going to make you like it more. Your dislike of that skin is rooted in its colors and textures, not its layout; the layout is the same across all three skins. (And again, a switch to choose the skin you want? Awesome idea, sounds great.)
When we talk about layout design, we're specifically and explicitly not talking about the art. We have the existing art as a reference if we need a reminder of what it looks like--and as a designer, you have to trust that your artists will take the frame you give them and make it look good. Ideally you have the artists in the room taking notes so that they can contribute to the evolution of the design.
As a UI designer it's your job to find the frame that feels good even in greyboxes, that is fun to use and intuitive even when there's no art on it. Once that job is done, that's when you hand it over to the artists and say "Now make it look like Baldur's Gate."
The switch from 2D arrow to 3D arrow is significant; it communicates to the artist that what they're seeing isn't text; it's a UI element that needs to be drawn and painted, and needs to fit with the rest of the theme.
I'd actually say that the second example above went too far--if I think it's important that the arrows be green and red, it's important for me to communicate that. But putting it in a neutral setting allows everyone to look at the design objectively, and that's crucial when designing something that a player is going to use 10% or more of the time they're playing the game.
Yes, I want the option for a more BG like skin. After that there is the chosen layout, the use of color, the use of lights, on and on. All of the things we have been discussing here.
I also want to communicate not only how I envision the layout, but the graphics too.
What I'd say here is that it's totally fine to have a working artistic sketch to toss up when you get to a milestone, as a reference point of "This is what I'm seeing here". But the layout design doesn't happen on the artist's canvas, if that makes sense.
Yes, I want the option for a more BG like skin. After that there is the chosen layout, the use of color, the use of lights, on and on. All of the things we have been discussing here.
Where are the lights you're talking about? I get "use of color", but to the best of my knowledge there were never any "lights" in the UI design process. Unless that's just hyperbole for "bright colors"?
Yes, it's more than the skin. But the colors used are part of the skin. That's my point. When the layout's ready for art, that's when the artist will look and say "Okay they've got these red and green arrows, but let's pick a red and green that match with the rest of the game's aesthetic."
Whatever the “correct term” might be, the effect produced by portraits lighting up etcetera, is one of flashing lights. I’ve never had anyone not understand what I am referring to when using that description here. Others use it as well, so I assume it is an acceptable description.
I also want to communicate not only how I envision the layout, but the graphics too.
What I'd say here is that it's totally fine to have a working artistic sketch to toss up when you get to a milestone, as a reference point of "This is what I'm seeing here". But the layout design doesn't happen on the artist's canvas, if that makes sense.
I understand that, but in this thread we disscuss both layout and art.
I also want to communicate not only how I envision the layout, but the graphics too.
What I'd say here is that it's totally fine to have a working artistic sketch to toss up when you get to a milestone, as a reference point of "This is what I'm seeing here". But the layout design doesn't happen on the artist's canvas, if that makes sense.
I understand that, but in this thread we disscuss both layout and art.
That's fine, if that's what you want to do. I've been trying to offer a more professional perspective, to convey why it's important to start with layout first.
The danger is focusing on art before the design is agreed upon. It's dangerous because it draws your attention away from design at a point in the process where that attention is most critical. Just be aware of that as you continue without me.
It should also be considered that designing UI for, let's say, BG2, which is part of the "package" here, is not the same as designing UI for a new game. For a new game, yes, you want your layouts to be functionally sound first and then you want to build your visuals around that. And you can go in a lot of directions with it, as you have full artistic freedom.
When making new UI for BG2, you need to be more careful. BG2 already has an artistic style that needs to be adhered to, and frankly, you have less freedom there. Like a lot less. If you make your functional layout too mechanical, or too "rigid", it won't work well with the art style. You need to give primary consideration to both functionality and the visuals. Focusing on one first and having it override the needs of the other is not a good idea.
And not to point fingers, but I think the difficulties that I described above caused a lot of problems with the UI in version 2.0. Of course, it's not my decision how Beamdog will design their next UI going forward, but I want to warn them against committing the same mistake again.
I think the art and feel are important ... but at this stage, whilst we are discussing where everything still goes, to discuss or choose colours does seem completely at odds with what we want to achieve right now. Once we have firm blueprints then we can worry about this bit being blue/red/yellow or whatever.
The point about it looking good in all 3 games is also important. What may look good in BG2, might look horrible in SOD, and a bit meh in BG1, or it may work in SOD's UI but look horrible in BG2. We are talking about fixing the layout so it works the same regardless of the game colour scheme - If we can make grey boxes work, then the pressure is on the art guys to make it look pretty after we've fixed that layout.
@Dee has heavily hinted - and I may be reading too much between the lines - that there must be a uniform UI layout for all games. So we need to make that UI layout work regardless of the colour scheme.
So yes, we need to trust them. But yes, we can also guide them...
Think of a clothes designer - they will usually do some kind of sketch of the form and function of the clothes they are designing... they might include colour swatches, fabric samples, 'moods' and suggestions to the people that put it together. But rarely will they colour the lot in... because it's not needed. In fact, colouring it in actually detracts and makes it harder to see the form of the design (I speak from experience here as a relative was a wedding dress designer and I grew up surrounded by pencil sketches with bits of material or colour paper pinned to them).
But yes, let's make suggestions - 'it could look like this' or it needs to be a deep red - but what shade of red, nah... it doesn't matter. Yes, we need to trust those artists. Let's give them the colour swatches where relevant but let's not colour it in for them. Just like we wouldn't do the coding for the UI guys.
I'd also argue that of all our recommendations the UI LAYOUT is the feedback most likely to be taken on board as is. Graphics, colouration, ornamentation etc is much less likely to be directly on board - just my opinion, but art is the expensive bit.
And ultimately, if we do everything, then we may as well just make it a mod ourselves (and I think @Pecca and I already did that )
@Mr2150 is saying that the three games use the same layout. Partly that's to maintain familiarity for the player from game to game. The skin might change, but the basic layout of the screen should remain the same. That makes it easier to fix things on the programmers' side, and it also helps the artists by placing things in predictable locations.
Features can be changed or turned off or moved around, but those changes need to be made for all three skins; the placement of elements needs to be independent of the skin.
I understand that part @Dee, but I see no reason we should be thinking how to “fit” the iconic BG and BGII games into this new SoD portion. People used to talk about not liking mod NPCs that were special snowflakes and took over the game. It begins to feel like that is what SoD is trying to do.
Why wouldn’t both artwork and layout that is suitable for Baldur’s Gate not be suitable for SoD?
I understand that part @Dee, but I see no reason we should be thinking how to “fit” the iconic BG and BGII games into this new SoD portion. People used to talk about not liking mod NPCs that were special snowflakes and took over the game. It begins to feel like that is what SoD is trying to do.
Why wouldn’t both artwork and layout that is suitable for Baldur’s Gate not be suitable for SoD?
I think you're missing the crux of what @Mr2150 was saying, which was that you want the layout to be suitable for all three games, not just one of them. If you design for BGII:EE and not BG:EE, you may end up with a design that looks bad for BG:EE.
He was using SoD as an example, but it applies just as equally to BG:EE, BGII:EE, or even IWD:EE.
What may look good in BG2, might look horrible in SOD, and a bit meh in BG1, or it may work in SOD's UI but look horrible in BG2.
This isn't about SOD vs BG1 vs BG2 - all 3 use virtually the same UI code. So I'm saying that we should try to design a UI layout that works for any colour scheme. By doing it in grey boxes and abstractifying (is that even a word?) it... it should work in the 'feel' of BG1 and BG2 and SOD, and if we create a new game and the colour scheme is bright pink with yellow dots, then it should work there too....
I would argue that by making mockups with the artworks of a specific game can (and did) produce an outcome suitable for all games - just as we did with the record screen. This issue may be just overthinking.
I’m not missing the point. Modders found a way years ago to use the UI from BGII for BG. It looked great, worked great. Surely Beamdog can find a way to incorporate their new game and UI into the other two.
An example would be the UI proposal that was suggested and submitted for the character screen. Something that will work with all games. I assume that’s correct or you would have told us otherwise?
And isn’t that what we have been trying to do in this current thread?
Comments
Otherwise you may very well end up with a design that looks great for BGII:EE but terrible for Siege of Dragonspear.
My recommendation, as always, is to work with a neutral aesthetic when discussing layout. If something stands out (like red and green arrows, for instance), then that means that element isn't neutral enough for the discussion.
I'll show you what I mean.
Here's a grey-box with comparison stats.
"Great," you might say, "Except that those arrows look awfully bright and they're distracting."
The solution isn't to replace those arrows with "real art", because this is just a draft proposal. Instead, here's another version, where the arrows have been tweaked to fit in better with the surrounding neutral layout:
All that's been done here is to change the arrows from colored 2D shapes to greyscale 3D objects. They're still placeholders, and they're still different colors to communicate that they're going to be different colors in the final draft. But they're still neutral--which means that the artists aren't expected to use them as a reference for anything other than "arrow pointing up" or "arrow pointing down".
(As an added bonus I combined the two color swatches into one button with two colors on it; having two buttons next to each other that do the same thing is redundant, but there's no reason why you can't have one button with two colors on it.)
I'm as guilty as anyone else there but your point is completely valid. I'd be happy to return to grey boxes.
Also agree with the redundancy about two buttons next to each other having the same function- in fact I made the point several times earlier.
But the point is, you shouldn't try to paint the walls until you've built the house.
What you're building here is the foundation, the floors, the stairs, and the frame. Every piece of decoration you add to the house before it's finished (carpet, light fixtures, appliances, wallpaper) makes it harder to fix things in the architecture. In fact, it makes it harder to see that those things need fixing in the first place.
The last place I lived was a new apartment complex, gorgeous on the outside, and the inside looked nice too--but as soon as we started living there we noticed that half the cable outlets had no wires in them, the carpet on the stairs wasn't padded, the light fixtures were all slightly off-symmetry. Things that were buried under the pretty exterior, that would have been fixed if it hadn't looked quite so nice on the outside.
Art covers up mistakes. As a
playerdesigner, you don't want to cover up mistakes; you want to make the mistakes stand out so that everyone can see them, so that they get fixed, and fixed early.Not saying neutral colors should not be used for layouts, but in my opinion the more finalized-looking mockups are rather useful too.
All these details become even more important if your talking about changing all the artwork to look the same for all the games. For instance, and I don’t wish to insult anyone here, but honestly the thought of SoDs current graphics taking over the old style of artwork used in the original games makes me want to cry.
I know, the argument will be made that we can’t know what neat ideas they will use for that. But I the customer have only the evidence that I have been given so far to go on. Judging by what I have been given, the old style has not been given proper consideration.
As a player designer, you don't want to cover up mistakes; you want to make the mistakes stand out so that everyone can see them, so that they get fixed, and fixed early.
Exactly!
And only using grayscale minimizes how things will actually look and feel in game.
When we talk about layout design, we're specifically and explicitly not talking about the art. We have the existing art as a reference if we need a reminder of what it looks like--and as a designer, you have to trust that your artists will take the frame you give them and make it look good. Ideally you have the artists in the room taking notes so that they can contribute to the evolution of the design.
As a UI designer it's your job to find the frame that feels good even in greyboxes, that is fun to use and intuitive even when there's no art on it. Once that job is done, that's when you hand it over to the artists and say "Now make it look like Baldur's Gate."
The switch from 2D arrow to 3D arrow is significant; it communicates to the artist that what they're seeing isn't text; it's a UI element that needs to be drawn and painted, and needs to fit with the rest of the theme.
I'd actually say that the second example above went too far--if I think it's important that the arrows be green and red, it's important for me to communicate that. But putting it in a neutral setting allows everyone to look at the design objectively, and that's crucial when designing something that a player is going to use 10% or more of the time they're playing the game.
It goes beyond one skin.
Yes, I want the option for a more BG like skin. After that there is the chosen layout, the use of color, the use of lights, on and on. All of the things we have been discussing here.
Yes, it's more than the skin. But the colors used are part of the skin. That's my point. When the layout's ready for art, that's when the artist will look and say "Okay they've got these red and green arrows, but let's pick a red and green that match with the rest of the game's aesthetic."
The danger is focusing on art before the design is agreed upon. It's dangerous because it draws your attention away from design at a point in the process where that attention is most critical. Just be aware of that as you continue without me.
But the danger of disscussing layout only is that, as you said, you have to trust your artist to make it look good.
When making new UI for BG2, you need to be more careful. BG2 already has an artistic style that needs to be adhered to, and frankly, you have less freedom there. Like a lot less. If you make your functional layout too mechanical, or too "rigid", it won't work well with the art style. You need to give primary consideration to both functionality and the visuals. Focusing on one first and having it override the needs of the other is not a good idea.
And not to point fingers, but I think the difficulties that I described above caused a lot of problems with the UI in version 2.0. Of course, it's not my decision how Beamdog will design their next UI going forward, but I want to warn them against committing the same mistake again.
And I think it looks almost as good in greyscale as it does with the art. For me, that is the layout I would like to see in the game.
Sigh… This is exactly what I have been trying to say in all of these threads. It’s nice to see someone else put it into words.
The point about it looking good in all 3 games is also important. What may look good in BG2, might look horrible in SOD, and a bit meh in BG1, or it may work in SOD's UI but look horrible in BG2. We are talking about fixing the layout so it works the same regardless of the game colour scheme - If we can make grey boxes work, then the pressure is on the art guys to make it look pretty after we've fixed that layout.
@Dee has heavily hinted - and I may be reading too much between the lines - that there must be a uniform UI layout for all games. So we need to make that UI layout work regardless of the colour scheme.
So yes, we need to trust them. But yes, we can also guide them...
Think of a clothes designer - they will usually do some kind of sketch of the form and function of the clothes they are designing... they might include colour swatches, fabric samples, 'moods' and suggestions to the people that put it together. But rarely will they colour the lot in... because it's not needed.
In fact, colouring it in actually detracts and makes it harder to see the form of the design (I speak from experience here as a relative was a wedding dress designer and I grew up surrounded by pencil sketches with bits of material or colour paper pinned to them).
But yes, let's make suggestions - 'it could look like this' or it needs to be a deep red - but what shade of red, nah... it doesn't matter. Yes, we need to trust those artists. Let's give them the colour swatches where relevant but let's not colour it in for them. Just like we wouldn't do the coding for the UI guys.
I'd also argue that of all our recommendations the UI LAYOUT is the feedback most likely to be taken on board as is. Graphics, colouration, ornamentation etc is much less likely to be directly on board - just my opinion, but art is the expensive bit.
And ultimately, if we do everything, then we may as well just make it a mod ourselves (and I think @Pecca and I already did that
If SoD is meant to be a bridge between BG and BGII it should fit in with the other two, not take over.
Features can be changed or turned off or moved around, but those changes need to be made for all three skins; the placement of elements needs to be independent of the skin.
Why wouldn’t both artwork and layout that is suitable for Baldur’s Gate not be suitable for SoD?
He was using SoD as an example, but it applies just as equally to BG:EE, BGII:EE, or even IWD:EE.
This isn't about SOD vs BG1 vs BG2 - all 3 use virtually the same UI code. So I'm saying that we should try to design a UI layout that works for any colour scheme. By doing it in grey boxes and abstractifying (is that even a word?) it... it should work in the 'feel' of BG1 and BG2 and SOD, and if we create a new game and the colour scheme is bright pink with yellow dots, then it should work there too....
An example would be the UI proposal that was suggested and submitted for the character screen. Something that will work with all games. I assume that’s correct or you would have told us otherwise?
And isn’t that what we have been trying to do in this current thread?