@lefreut So, all the bugs are entirely cosmetic? Clickables work, all the needed information is visible. Yeah, no. A handful of cosmetic bugs does not equal "broken." This is entirely intellectually dishonest.
1. Cosmetic bugs are bugs. If you don't care about them, that's fine, and we can argue semantics all day, but the point is that the Enhanced Edition shouldn't look and sound worse than the original games do. There shouldn't be missing graphics and sound effects where the original games had them.
2. If you go down the list that I always link to in all these UI-related discussions (though it's incomplete—I should try to make a new more complete one, one of these days), you'll find plenty of issues that aren't purely cosmetic and also affect usability. All of the following issues affect usability:
- Bug: list items sometimes remain selected from a previous instance when a new list is displayed
- Bug: scrollbars generally fail to scroll to the relevant position when their content gets updated (e.g. when selling/buying in stores, donating to temples, drinking in taverns, etc.)
- Bug: clicking the background of a scrollbar fails to scroll the content
- Usability issue: when using the mouse wheel, the scrollbars in the store window scroll too slowly
- Bug: text input fields scroll to the wrong character position when clicking the contained text
- Usability issue: text fields do not become selected by default when a new text field panel opens
- Usability issue: confirmation and query windows aren't confirmed when the player presses the enter key
- Usability issue: missing dialog for custom portrait selection during character creation
- Usability issue: disabled character options missing from lists during character creation
- Usability issue: character color sliders scroll to the wrong color when clicked, and are difficult to handle
- Bug: missing travel time indication for unnamed areas on the world map
- Bug: double-clicking areas on the travel map often assigns phantom commands to the party afterward
- Usability issue: the dialog window has three different scrollbars instead of one, which is all that would be needed
- Usability issue: pressing space skips dialog, which is desired by some and undesired by others—hence it should be optional
- Bug: item handling in the inventory is less responsive due to clicks not always registering when moving items between slots or characters
- Usability issue: there are small gaps between the inventory item slots that make item handling more difficult
- Inconsistency: right-clicking any item or spell icon opens its description, except on the mage book and priest scroll pages where you need to left-click the spell's name to open its description
- Inconsistency: left-clicking a spell's icon on the mage book and priest scroll screens selects the spell, but left-clicking its name shows its description
- Usability issue: the player cannot memorize spells in any desired order, instead, the spell memorization order gets automatically set
- Usability issue: item description screen lacks indication for when the character cannot learn any more spells of a scroll's spell level
- Usability issue: the player cannot switch to the journal menu while any other menu is open
- Usability issue: to sell a stack of items in the store, the player is unnecessarily required to double-click the item and select the maximum amount
- Bug: opening and closing menus often repositions the viewport
@Adul@Raduziel No, the UI STILL WORKS. IT FUNCTIONS. CALLING IT BROKEN IS STRAIGHT UP FALSE. Everything I can see in your list is that some things don't work the way YOU WANT THEM TO. But they still WORK. Nothing is actually broken.
@Adul@Raduziel No, the UI STILL WORKS. IT FUNCTIONS. CALLING IT BROKEN IS STRAIGHT UP FALSE. Everything I can see in your list is that some things don't work the way YOU WANT THEM TO.
No, they don't work the way they're supposed to. There's a difference.
Other than that, you're just arguing semantics. Words can have different meanings to different people. For instance:
@Adul "No, they don't work the way they're supposed to. There's a difference."
No, they don't work the way that YOU want them to. There's a big differnce.
"3. Non-functional; not functioning properly."
Good thing the UI DOES function. Your definition doesn't help you. Or do you think that you are somehow the one person who decides what the UI is supposed to do? Nevermind anyone else who like the current UI. We don't matter, right?
@ThacoBell My dad always told me "don't raise your voice, improve your arguments". I like to follow this lesson, so I also give myself the right to not waste my time with someone who yells their reasons.
That being told, here are my final words to you about this subject: you raised the hypothesis that all the bugs are merely cosmetic. I pointed to you two of them that aren't.
No, they don't work the way that YOU want them to. There's a big differnce.
I'll concede that at a second glance, a few of the list elements I've quoted above are more appropriate as feature requests and design criticisms rather than examples of hard issues, as they're more a matter of opinion. Honestly, I should have separated these out to avoid confusion. I'll do so now:
- Usability issue: disabled character options missing from lists during character creation
- Usability issue: pressing space skips dialog, which is desired by some and undesired by others—hence it should be optional
- Inconsistency: right-clicking any item or spell icon opens its description, except on the mage book and priest scroll pages where you need to left-click the spell's name to open its description
- Inconsistency: left-clicking a spell's icon on the mage book and priest scroll screens selects the spell, but left-clicking its name shows its description
The rest, however, are legit bugs and usability issues. Here's how you can tell:
A bug is a function that doesn't work or has unintended results.
A usability issue is a function that has diminished usability—that is, it's either more difficult or outright impossible to use—compared to the same or equivalent function in an earlier version of the game, such as v1.3 or vanilla.
Are you against Beamdog fixing those? If so, can you be more specific and point out which ones you wouldn't want fixed?
Did you miss the part that I bolded? I bolded it again, just in case. The semicolon denotes that both definitions exist.
It's also worth noting that dictionaries don't define words, language users do. I linked to that page as an example that shows the word "broken" has more definitions than the one you're insisting it exclusively means, in order to point out that arguing about semantics is a pointless exercise.
I also had a hard time seeing the bugs in all of this. But then again I have never given UI much thought either.
I did a lot of BWS setups some 10-15 years ago. 2-3 times I did a full new BWS with downloades mods from Kerzenburg. Every single time, and I mean every single time I did a setup the UI changed. I never deliberately downloaded UI mods, but they seemed a part of the process I figured.
Point is that the beauty and functionality of the UI is in the eye of the beholder (pun intended). Many people have an opinion and some a very strong opinion. And the interface have been tweaked as changed for all I know. I like content, you favour UI as well - fine, I respect your opinion and I will not raise my voice against you that think it’s broken. But Imho I think the UI is the best and most solid ever.
@Adul "The rest, however, are legit bugs and usability issues."
Here's the thing. I never denied that there were bugs. I've even supported your requests to get those bugs fixed in the past. My issue specific issue is with the language you and other users have relied on to get your point atcross. "Broken Garbage." The UI functions. If something performs the function for which it was designed, it is not broken. A refridgerator whose light has burnt out, but still keeps food cold is not "broken". Languages have defined rules and usage for a reason. If everyone used words with different meanings, communication would be impossible.
I'll be honest, @ThacoBell: That comes across as ironic from someone who used all-caps and subsequently called it "bold." Bold and all-caps are completely different concepts and, while bold can indeed be used for emphasis, all-caps is widely recognized as the written equivalent of shouting. If we're going to debate semantics and stress how important linguistic choices are, your choice to use all-caps was uncalled for—and, while your intent might have been to emphasize rather than to shout, such was the end result just the same.
@Adul "The rest, however, are legit bugs and usability issues."
Here's the thing. I never denied that there were bugs. I've even supported your requests to get those bugs fixed in the past. My issue specific issue is with the language you and other users have relied on to get your point atcross. "Broken Garbage." The UI functions. If something performs the function for which it was designed, it is not broken. A refridgerator whose light has burnt out, but still keeps food cold is not "broken". Languages have defined rules and usage for a reason. If everyone used words with different meanings, communication would be impossible.
Different people do use the same words with different meanings. Some of the meanings are very close, some of them are farther apart, but they do differ from person to person. That's how language works. Meanings fluctuate and adapt between people and cultures.
"The UI is broken" as a statement is no more unspecific than "the UI functions" is. Unlike a fridge, the UI doesn't have one primary function, instead, it has many different ones. How many of those functions need to be compromised, and to what extent, before you'd accept the "broken" as a general adjective for the UI? And how many of the functions need to be working, and to what specifications, for it to be correctly labeled "functional", in your opinion? Whatever your answer is to those questions, it's going to be arbitrary, because there's no objective standard to what state a complex system needs to operate in to be considered "broken" or "functional".
@AndreaColombo Here's a tip when reading my comments. I use actual grammar and rules. If you want to read slang or common poor usage into it, that's all on you. I'm not responsible for other people not using grammar properly.
@ThacoBell - Formatting and grammar are different things. Like bold and all-caps. Since it is widely recognized that all-caps is tantamount to shouting, I'd say it's on you if you deliberately choose not to follow a convention that everybody else is.
That said, seeing how I don't really have a horse in this race, this is where the argument ends as far as I'm concerned.
What @ThacoBell keeps saying in this thread is correct - calling something "a broken crap" is an opinion, not a fact. The language, of course, is also a problem. This is why I didn't support the comment using that phrase (especially as a part of a question), and still don't. However, there are a lot of people in this thread who agreed with the comment - I guess, because they agree with that opinion. But it doesn't make the opinion a true fact.
I was accused I don't listen, I don't take into account critics. Moreover, Beamdog was accused of that. With this, I can't agree as well.
UI has issues, it has problems, and this has been acknowledged by our official replies. We replied that we read the feedback, the actual feature requests and threads. Nothing has been set aside. Instead, Luke replied that the feedback had been considered while the team had worked on the console versions. That said, we're not ready to provide an exact answer - something I understand the people in this thread want - whether or when we will tweak the UI in the PC version. We replied: "that could very possibly end up paying dividends for the PC versions into the future", and at this moment I can't add anything else to this.
UI has issues, it has problems, and this has been acknowledged by our official replies. We replied that we read the feedback, the actual feature requests and threads. Nothing has been set aside. Instead, Luke replied that the feedback had been considered while the team had worked on the console versions. That said, we're not ready to provide an exact answer - something I understand the people in this thread want - whether or when we will tweak the UI in the PC version. We replied: "that could very possibly end up paying dividends for the PC versions into the future", and at this moment I can't add anything else to this.
I don't want answers, I want fixes. I've wanted fixes for the past 3 years but Beamdog hasn't delivered them. At this point it's fair to say that Beamdog doesn't listen, because a considerable portion of the community have wanted UI fixes for 3 years, and Beamdog hasn't delivered.
To be clear, it's not your fault, your communications have always been clear on this, and I'm sure you've delivered our concerns to the rest of the team. You're doing a great job, as far as I'm concerned. It's Beamdog's fault for not delivering.
What @ThacoBell keeps saying in this thread is correct - calling something "a broken crap" is an opinion, not a fact. The language, of course, is also a problem. This is why I didn't support the comment using that phrase (especially as a part of a question), and still don't. However, there are a lot of people in this thread who agreed with the comment - I guess, because they agree with that opinion. But it doesn't make the opinion a true fact.
I was accused I don't listen, I don't take into account critics. Moreover, Beamdog was accused of that. With this, I can't agree as well.
UI has issues, it has problems, and this has been acknowledged by our official replies. We replied that we read the feedback, the actual feature requests and threads. Nothing has been set aside. Instead, Luke replied that the feedback had been considered while the team had worked on the console versions. That said, we're not ready to provide an exact answer - something I understand the people in this thread want - whether or when we will tweak the UI in the PC version. We replied: "that could very possibly end up paying dividends for the PC versions into the future", and at this moment I can't add anything else to this.
You are still missing the point. We don't care about tweaking the UI. We have UI modding for this and we already have made much much better than Beamdog can ever do.
What we care about is when are you going to fix the bugs.
What we care about is when are you going to fix the bugs.
Yeah, the language thing is clearly a rabbit hole that people are going to just disagree on since language is so nuanced. It seems pretty fruitless to fault people for giving legitimate feedback based on language fallacies (not commenting on expecting people to keep things respectful, just on all the arguments based on language nuances).
The fact remains, people want things, and they aren't coming because resources are focused elsewhere. The lack of ETAs or even knowing if issues will be handled or not isn't helping. I'd call for more transparency, but I get the feeling that just isn't an option. I think all people can do is keep voicing what they want to see change and hope that they finally get to it (whether they currently have plans to or not).
Do you perhaps know if the 2.6 patch will bring some new capabilities for modding the Infinity Engine (e.g., new/expanded opcodes, new/expanded script triggers/actions and the like)? Thanks in advance.
Not sure. At this point, it's easier to just wait till the patch drops.
Nice to finally get some news out for 2.6, even though there's no indication when it's actually coming, other than 'soonish'.
Still not sure why this needed to be hush-hushed.
Also, it doesn't mention in any way if the DLC will still be released or not. I kinda assumed it wouldn't, due to the controversy about it, but it remains unclear.
According to WotC, the DCA is on hold. So is the DLC.
Comments
1. Cosmetic bugs are bugs. If you don't care about them, that's fine, and we can argue semantics all day, but the point is that the Enhanced Edition shouldn't look and sound worse than the original games do. There shouldn't be missing graphics and sound effects where the original games had them.
2. If you go down the list that I always link to in all these UI-related discussions (though it's incomplete—I should try to make a new more complete one, one of these days), you'll find plenty of issues that aren't purely cosmetic and also affect usability. All of the following issues affect usability:
No, they don't work the way they're supposed to. There's a difference.
Other than that, you're just arguing semantics. Words can have different meanings to different people. For instance:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/broken
No, they don't work the way that YOU want them to. There's a big differnce.
"3. Non-functional; not functioning properly."
Good thing the UI DOES function. Your definition doesn't help you. Or do you think that you are somehow the one person who decides what the UI is supposed to do? Nevermind anyone else who like the current UI. We don't matter, right?
That being told, here are my final words to you about this subject: you raised the hypothesis that all the bugs are merely cosmetic. I pointed to you two of them that aren't.
That's objective.
Have a nice day.
Which two bugs were those? I didn't see anything in your comment that made something in-game un-workable.
I'll concede that at a second glance, a few of the list elements I've quoted above are more appropriate as feature requests and design criticisms rather than examples of hard issues, as they're more a matter of opinion. Honestly, I should have separated these out to avoid confusion. I'll do so now:
The rest, however, are legit bugs and usability issues. Here's how you can tell:
Are you against Beamdog fixing those? If so, can you be more specific and point out which ones you wouldn't want fixed?
Did you miss the part that I bolded? I bolded it again, just in case. The semicolon denotes that both definitions exist.
It's also worth noting that dictionaries don't define words, language users do. I linked to that page as an example that shows the word "broken" has more definitions than the one you're insisting it exclusively means, in order to point out that arguing about semantics is a pointless exercise.
I did a lot of BWS setups some 10-15 years ago. 2-3 times I did a full new BWS with downloades mods from Kerzenburg. Every single time, and I mean every single time I did a setup the UI changed. I never deliberately downloaded UI mods, but they seemed a part of the process I figured.
Point is that the beauty and functionality of the UI is in the eye of the beholder (pun intended). Many people have an opinion and some a very strong opinion. And the interface have been tweaked as changed for all I know. I like content, you favour UI as well - fine, I respect your opinion and I will not raise my voice against you that think it’s broken. But Imho I think the UI is the best and most solid ever.
No sign of BG II EE though...
Both games are back. https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/1082961/#Comment_1082961
Thanks bro, just in time for my holidays!
Here's the thing. I never denied that there were bugs. I've even supported your requests to get those bugs fixed in the past. My issue specific issue is with the language you and other users have relied on to get your point atcross. "Broken Garbage." The UI functions. If something performs the function for which it was designed, it is not broken. A refridgerator whose light has burnt out, but still keeps food cold is not "broken". Languages have defined rules and usage for a reason. If everyone used words with different meanings, communication would be impossible.
Different people do use the same words with different meanings. Some of the meanings are very close, some of them are farther apart, but they do differ from person to person. That's how language works. Meanings fluctuate and adapt between people and cultures.
"The UI is broken" as a statement is no more unspecific than "the UI functions" is. Unlike a fridge, the UI doesn't have one primary function, instead, it has many different ones. How many of those functions need to be compromised, and to what extent, before you'd accept the "broken" as a general adjective for the UI? And how many of the functions need to be working, and to what specifications, for it to be correctly labeled "functional", in your opinion? Whatever your answer is to those questions, it's going to be arbitrary, because there's no objective standard to what state a complex system needs to operate in to be considered "broken" or "functional".
That said, seeing how I don't really have a horse in this race, this is where the argument ends as far as I'm concerned.
I was accused I don't listen, I don't take into account critics. Moreover, Beamdog was accused of that. With this, I can't agree as well.
UI has issues, it has problems, and this has been acknowledged by our official replies. We replied that we read the feedback, the actual feature requests and threads. Nothing has been set aside. Instead, Luke replied that the feedback had been considered while the team had worked on the console versions. That said, we're not ready to provide an exact answer - something I understand the people in this thread want - whether or when we will tweak the UI in the PC version. We replied: "that could very possibly end up paying dividends for the PC versions into the future", and at this moment I can't add anything else to this.
Nobody argued that it wasn't an opinion. Well, I guess ThacoBell did, in a roundabout way.
For the record: "the UI is broken" is an opinion, not a fact. Hope that helps dispel the confusion.
I don't want answers, I want fixes. I've wanted fixes for the past 3 years but Beamdog hasn't delivered them. At this point it's fair to say that Beamdog doesn't listen, because a considerable portion of the community have wanted UI fixes for 3 years, and Beamdog hasn't delivered.
To be clear, it's not your fault, your communications have always been clear on this, and I'm sure you've delivered our concerns to the rest of the team. You're doing a great job, as far as I'm concerned. It's Beamdog's fault for not delivering.
You are still missing the point. We don't care about tweaking the UI. We have UI modding for this and we already have made much much better than Beamdog can ever do.
What we care about is when are you going to fix the bugs.
Yeah, the language thing is clearly a rabbit hole that people are going to just disagree on since language is so nuanced. It seems pretty fruitless to fault people for giving legitimate feedback based on language fallacies (not commenting on expecting people to keep things respectful, just on all the arguments based on language nuances).
The fact remains, people want things, and they aren't coming because resources are focused elsewhere. The lack of ETAs or even knowing if issues will be handled or not isn't helping. I'd call for more transparency, but I get the feeling that just isn't an option. I think all people can do is keep voicing what they want to see change and hope that they finally get to it (whether they currently have plans to or not).
The community can make their own tools. Just release the source code.
If they did that, it would be the greatest redemption arc ever seen. It would up Darth Vader, Prince Zuko and Jaime Lannister in one fell swoop.
Gotta love me some old school pixels.
1. Darth Vader
2. Prince Zuko
3. Jamie Lannister
Jamie: And, you'll get all three. A Lannister always-
Bronn: Don't say it. Don't foxtrotting say it.
Thank you for reading, and happy gaming to all.
Hush, you! Else a certain D&D showrunner pair might use this for another HBO abomination.
Well, they'd have to stop patching the games first for that be ironic.
Hey, I guess you could say I wrote that joke with longevity in mind. It'll be funny in a few years.