100 réponses à ce sujet

[SXOSXO]

The point of the VFX isn't so they're literally visible to everyone including you and your companions, it's there to indicate certain buffs are active without you have to select the character and check. Hence keeping them active during convos isn't really a matter of "consistency," but more of a matter of they're not necessary and are just distracting.

I don't think it was ever Bioware's intention that a "champion" that is "rallying" their companions literally has a glowing aura around them, therefore it's not like it's actually visible to anyone in the game world. Case in point, in the book The Stolen Throne, a mage casts a shield on himself prior to having a meeting with a bard, but the shield itself was completely invisible.

Modifié par SXOSXO, 01 octobre 2010 - 04:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

SXOSXO wrote...

The point of the VFX isn't so they're literally visible to everyone including you and your companions, it's there to indicate certain buffs are active without you have to select the character and check.

Then it's just poor UI design.

And I still doubt that the UI designers had anything to do with it.

[Collider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm not a fan of VFX for sustainables (particularly non-magical sustainables).

But since DAO had them, I really liked that they behaved reasonably.  If you were glowing when a conversations started then you were glowing during that conversation.

It made perfect sense.

I understand you're planning to have those VFX go away ion conversations and cutscenes in DA2.  I'd like you to rethink that, or at least give us the option to keep them on.

Having VFX disappear and reappear for no reason (from the game's perspective) isn't good for consistency.  It just doesn't make sense that something has a visible consequence that disappears suddenly when I talk to people.

Thanks for listening.

Maybe if it made sense. Glowing purple because Leliana is singing to me does not make sense.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then it's just poor UI design.

Not necessarily, since providing information where the player is looking -- in this case the battle itself -- instead of forcing them to split attention between multiple zones on the screen (the battle and the toolbars and/or buff/debuff icon area) isn't considered "poor" UI design by any means. Providing this information contextually when it matters i.e. during the battle but not during the dialogue also isn't "poor" design.

I think if you can accept that these effects are just HUD-like overlays on the game world provided for the player's convenience, very much like the rest of the UI i.e. the toolbars, windows, damage readouts and such... then the whole thing becomes a non-issue.

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

I think if you can accept that these effects are just HUD-like overlays on the game world provided for the player's convenience, very much like the rest of the UI i.e. the toolbars, windows, damage readouts and such... then the whole thing becomes a non-issue.

I don't like HUD-like overlays.

I've said many times I'd like the entire UI to be contained within a frame that doesn't obscure my view of the game world at all.

And those floating damage numbers in DAO were the devil.  A text box would have been vastly superior.

[lv12medic]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't like HUD-like overlays.

I've said many times I'd like the entire UI to be contained within a frame that doesn't obscure my view of the game world at all.

Completely random idea, maybe it would be interesting if people using dual monitors can have it where the game is on one (with no to very little HUD overlay) and everything else on a seperate monitor.  Some RTS's have done that with maps and such.  Though that's probably a tiny fraction of the market and useless for console users (though I think consoles have their own overlay vs. the PC one already... atleast in DA:O).  /end random idea rambling

[Sylvius the Mad]

What was wrong with frames?

And yet, I don't think I've seen one since EverQuest.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't like HUD-like overlays.

I've said many times I'd like the entire UI to be contained within a frame that doesn't obscure my view of the game world at all.

Well but then it's basically just personal preference which happens to go against ergonomics, not the UI design being poor, isn't it? I mean, there is reasons why HUD overlays are used in modern combat technologies and for the same reasons it makes sense to have similar approach to UI in simulated combat as well.

edit: mind you, if there was a toggle to turn off all the UI things and such i'd personally use it since i do prefer to see the game world "the way it is" myself. But i don't think it's popular view, given it is a game after all first and foremost and as such player is likely to want the game-related info and they'll want it provided conveniently, not tucked in some corner.

Modifié par tmp7704, 01 octobre 2010 - 05:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

Well but then it's basically just personal preference which happens to go against ergonomics, not the UI design being poor, isn't it? I mean, there is reasons why HUD overlays are used in modern combat technologies and for the same reasons it makes sense to have similar approach to UI in simulated combat as well.

They're entirely different circumstances.

Real combat happens in real-time.  DAO combat is pausable.  And in real combat you're not trying to navigate amidst all the flashing UI elements with a mouse cursor.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They're entirely different circumstances.

Real combat happens in real-time.  DAO combat is pausable.  And in real combat you're not trying to navigate amidst all the flashing UI elements with a mouse cursor.

Ehh, this doesn't change the basic factors like the information being easier to access when it's provided when the player is already looking. Nor should be excuse to make it harder to access that it can be -- the pause is there to allow you to stop and think about tactics if you feel you must, not as a crutch for inconvenient UI.

And that "trying to navigate" thing really blows a simple "point and click" out of proportion, doesn't it?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Not at all. UI elements that move around are bad UI elements. If I'm going to point&click something it should always be in the same spot. That's good UI design.

If I want to select a character in DAO, I select his portrait (because I know where it is without having to hunt for it). This is why I've complained so much about DAO's list inventory system where you need to search through it looking for things every time you want something (as opposed to NWN's inventory system where everything stayed where you left it so you could select specific potions with your eyes closed).

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Not at all. UI elements that move around are bad UI elements. If I'm going to point&click something it should always be in the same spot. That's good UI design.

I take it you're talking now just about the "point and click" part and that's certainly true but not exactly always possible if you allow the player interact directly with elements of game world -- these will change location on screen simply depending on where the player is looking, even if they aren't moving objects in the game world themselves.

But in any case, this seems to have nothing to do anymore with the original subject which originated from mistaken premise (vfx being part of game world) that's been since then explained? So going to drop it, it can be explored elsewhere.

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

But in any case, this seems to have nothing to do anymore with the original subject which originated from mistaken premise (vfx being part of game world) that's been since then explained? So going to drop it, it can be explored elsewhere.

But that was an important answer.

If VFX are part of the game world then they should persist during conversations (unless the sustainable themselves end).

If they are simply part of the UI, then I'd like to argue for them to be handled entirely differently.  Putting icons next to character portraits would serve the purpose just as well without being so intrusive.  Also, they should have been documented so the player knew they were just UI elements.

One of the advantages of a UI frame is that the players know then what of all they see is UI and what is a representation of what their character's see.

If I (the player) see a character who is glowing red, can my character see the glow?  How can I decide whether my character should be afraid of the glowing person if I can't tell whether my character can perceive the glow?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 octobre 2010 - 05:45 .

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If they are simply part of the UI, then I'd like to argue for them to be handled entirely differently.  Putting icons next to character portraits would serve the purpose just as well without being so intrusive.

Well, i'd argue the "just as well" part because we've just went through it mere few posts ago re: HUDs providing info more conveniently than when it's split into multiple areas of the screen. But in any case this sort of request would probably still be better off in its own thread, given it's about redesign of UI rather than persistence of vfx in the conversations? Since i doubt any devs are reading this one still, so it's quite likely it'll go unnoticed here.

edit:

If I (the player) see a character who is glowing red, can my character see the glow?  How can I decide whether my character should be afraid of the glowing person if I can't tell whether my character can perceive the glow?

I think the glow is bit of red herring in such case -- regardless if your character can perceive the glow itself, they can perceive the state the glow is conveying to the player, and base decisions on that rather than the light show which --if it is indeed part of game world-- is pretty common since it occurs whenever someone uses related ability and as such not exactly scary.

Modifié par tmp7704, 01 octobre 2010 - 05:58 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

I think the glow is bit of red herring in such case -- regardless if your character can perceive the glow itself, they can perceive the state the glow is conveying to the player, and base decisions on that rather than the light show which --if it is indeed part of game world-- is pretty common since it occurs whenever someone uses related ability and as such not exactly scary.

This assumes I know what the red glow means.

And given DAO's assymmetric design, there's no guarantee I have access to the ability that produces that effect.  And given DAO's poor documentation, there's probably no way for me to look it up.

[SXOSXO]

If they are simply part of the UI, then I'd like to argue for them to be handled entirely differently. Putting icons next to character portraits would serve the purpose just as well without being so intrusive.

I too prefer the icon style of handling buffs and debuffs, but I'm assuming the problem is that if someone is playing on a console, and they're sitting several feet away from their TV, those small icons aren't very clear.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SXOSXO wrote...

If they are simply part of the UI, then I'd like to argue for them to be handled entirely differently. Putting icons next to character portraits would serve the purpose just as well without being so intrusive.

I too prefer the icon style of handling buffs and debuffs, but I'm assuming the problem is that if someone is playing on a console, and they're sitting several feet away from their TV, those small icons aren't very clear.

Since the consoles and PC already have different UIs, I don't see how this is a problem.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

I think the glow is bit of red herring in such case -- regardless if your character can perceive the glow itself, they can perceive the state the glow is conveying to the player, and base decisions on that rather than the light show which --if it is indeed part of game world-- is pretty common since it occurs whenever someone uses related ability and as such not exactly scary.

This assumes I know what the red glow means.

At the very least it tells you the character is using some ability. Which is a step up from suggested alternative of "icon buffs" which you won't be able to see during a conversation, especially on the person you're talking to and which your character may, theoretically, feel need to be afraid of based on the state that person is in.

[Faz432]

SXOSXO wrote...

I too prefer the icon style of handling buffs and debuffs, but I'm assuming the problem is that if someone is playing on a console, and they're sitting several feet away from their TV, those small icons aren't very clear.

Who sits several feet away from the TV when playing a game? nobody.

I think part of it is the amount of 'hand holding' they want to provide to some players, they might think they require a constant visual reminder of the range of an effect or that it's still on, which is fair enough but would it be unreasonable to have the options available to choose the amount of 'hand holding' you need?

[SXOSXO]

Who sits several feet away from the TV when playing a game? nobody.

Visualize yourself or anyone else sitting on a couch in front of a TV playing a game and rethink that question. Next, picture yourself or anyone else sitting in front of desk playing in front of their monitor, and consider the difference. That was my point.



I don't know for sure if this is the reasoning behind the visual buffs, but logically speaking it's the best reason I could come up with. I personally don't like them, but I figured there must be a logical reason they did it the way they did.

[Faz432]

SXOSXO wrote...

Who sits several feet away from the TV when playing a game? nobody.

Visualize yourself or anyone else sitting on a couch in front of a TV playing a game and rethink that question. Next, picture yourself or anyone else sitting in front of desk playing in front of their monitor, and consider the difference. That was my point.

I don't know for sure if this is the reasoning behind the visual buffs, but logically speaking it's the best reason I could come up with. I personally don't like them, but I figured there must be a logical reason they did it the way they did.

Personally I sit a similar distance whether it's a TV or Monitor, which would be a bit bigger than the screens width. Although yeah I can see what you're saying.

I think the best answer is usually the simplest, that would be they are there primarily as a visual aid. How else do we explain non-magical skills having magical auras, Rally for example which is blatantly just a range guide.

Modifié par Faz432, 01 octobre 2010 - 08:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

At the very least it tells you the character is using some ability. Which is a step up from suggested alternative of "icon buffs" which you won't be able to see during a conversation,

That's more an argument against taking away the UI during conversations.

BioWare games pre-KotOR left the UI in place during dialogue.  I see no reason why new can't can't.

especially on the person you're talking to and which your character may, theoretically, feel need to be afraid of based on the state that person is in.

The the VFX is just a UI element to tell me what's active, and there is no visible effect within the world, why should I be told what's active on my enemies?  How would my character know that?

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's more an argument against taking away the UI during conversations.

I see it opposite here -- a case where one controversial decision (using inconvenient method to provide information about character state) causes you to make another (leave the UI visible in situation where it's generally not needed) just to do what the original design can do without that.

BioWare games pre-KotOR left the UI in place during dialogue.  I see no reason why new can't can't.

A reason for this would be contextual information -- there's no need to put the UI clutter in the player's view when it's not relevant to situation at hand, and provides but a distraction from what actually matters.

The the VFX is just a UI element to tell me what's active, and there is no visible effect within the world, why should I be told what's active on my enemies?  How would my character know that?

I wouldn't confuse "the vfx is only visible to the player" with "there's no visible effect within the world at all" here. It's more of a two-way street imo -- abilities like defensive stances and whatnot are very likely something character in game world can perceive simply by looking at how the person using these abilities moves and acts... but we, the players don't receive the same information on our screens because the game doesn't have such sophisticated and wide range of available animations etc to reflect it. So instead the game conveys that info to us through particle effects and such.

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

I see it opposite here -- a case where one controversial decision (using inconvenient method to provide information about character state) causes you to make another (leave the UI visible in situation where it's generally not needed) just to do what the original design can do without that.

Leaving the UI visible all the time has other benefits, regardless of these icons.  Even without sustainable abilities I'd rather leave the UI in place.

Having it come and go does nothing but draw attention to it, thus serving as a constant reminder than I'm playing a game rather than experiencing a deep and vibrant world.

BioWare games pre-KotOR left the UI in place during dialogue.  I see no reason why new can't can't.A reason for this would be contextual information -- there's no need to put the UI clutter in the player's view when it's not relevant to situation at hand, and provides but a distraction from what actually matters.

What matters is determined solely by the player.  BioWare can't know that moment-to-movement in any gamer's roleplaying experience.

This is the same reason why I oppose depth of field effects in cutscenes.  BioWare can't know what my character will be focusing on.

I wouldn't confuse "the vfx is only visible to the player" with "there's no visible effect within the world at all" here. It's more of a two-way street imo -- abilities like defensive stances and whatnot are very likely something character in game world can perceive simply by looking at how the person using these abilities moves and acts... but we, the players don't receive the same information on our screens because the game doesn't have such sophisticated and wide range of available animations etc to reflect it. So instead the game conveys that info to us through particle effects and such.

then they need to document exactly what each effect means, both within the game world and without it.

No information is valuable if it's indecipherable.

[PsyrenY]

After setting aside ME2 to finally do some playing through Awakening, I'm honestly happy for this change.

I picked up one of those new sustainables - Fade Shield, I believe it was - that buffs your Arcane Shield to add reasonably hefty dodge and SR. I thought, I use Arcane Shield all the time for the cool "bubble" effect, so hey this is great.

Three conversations later and I'm already irritated by the thing. For those who haven't tried it, it adds a roiling, smoky warpy effect to your previously unobtrusive Arcane Shield to denote the miss chance buffs. I don't have a problem with that, but what it HAS done is make everyone in a close-up conversation look like they're speaking to me from the other end of a Stargate, or a rainy windshield, or through a scrying pool. Everyone my Warden speaks to wavers and leaps about so horribly, it's a wonder he can even walk in a straight line with all that distortion. But I am still glad for the visual cue that I am using "super Arcane shield."

tl;dr I am fine with removing auras/dweomers from conversation scenes as it will fix the above issue.