Aesthetically pleasing UI/Borders in RPGs?

[smaug]

IWD2 has the best looking UI among isometric RPGs.

 

[Bad Sector]

NWN. Sleek and efficient.

Efficient, yes, but it's futuristic style has always been at odds with the fantasy setting. A bit of decoration would have done wonders.

It doesn't really look futuristic, as far as i can tell these are supposed to be bronze (or gold?) elements. It is just that they use the same border everywhere (and gray lines wherever the border doesn't fit). Also the primary light source seems to be all over the place (not shown in the shot above, but scrollbars have mirrored buttons that also mirror the shading).

But yeah, the UI theme is *too* minimalistic and some decorations would improve it.

 

[FeelTheRads]

The NWN UI is as shit looking as the rest of the game.

"HUrr I did a rectangle with a border in Photoshop!"

 

[Dorateen]

The Wizardry VII character screen:

 

[sputtering fart balloon]

Vangers is probably my favorite old-school UI, the weird bug theme and insectoid cursor + related yucky sound effects give it such a weird vibe.

 

[Shadenuat]

I loved when u find items in LoL they become part of the UI.

 

[DraQ]

I loved when u find items in LoL they become part of the UI.

Yeah, that was nice, but overall the UI was nothing to write home about.

Just like most of the game in fact, except it looked nice, sounded nice and was weirdly charming.

 

[Naraya]

charming

You nailed it.

 

[Thal]

Baldur's Gate 1 is still flawless in this regard. Aesthetic and evocative of the setting and style of the game while being designed for functionality. Interface takes minimal amount of screen space, and yet displays all important information or allows you to access it with a single click or a key. Comfy, that's what it is, and it just makes you feel glad you're playing the game.

I wonder why developers don't get that presentation matters too. All these minimalist "sleek" interfaces that seem to be in the fashion now seem to be soulless more than anything.

 

[smileyninja]

What game is this?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

NWN. Sleek and efficient.

Efficient, yes, but it's futuristic style has always been at odds with the fantasy setting. A bit of decoration would have done wonders.

It doesn't really look futuristic, as far as i can tell these are supposed to be bronze (or gold?) elements. It is just that they use the same border everywhere (and gray lines wherever the border doesn't fit). Also the primary light source seems to be all over the place (not shown in the shot above, but scrollbars have mirrored buttons that also mirror the shading).

But yeah, the UI theme is *too* minimalistic and some decorations would improve it.

Everything about NWN looks awful. It's like they grabbed some random intern and told them to make the art. Even the 3D models look terrible by 2002 standards -- it released after games like Metal Gear Solid 2 and around the same time as No One Lives Forever 2.

NWN Aribeth:

Spoiler

I can't believe how hard it was to find a picture of her 3D model, wtf

Cate in No One Lives Forever 2:

Spoiler

Bonus points, EE Aribeth:

Spoiler

 

[Shadenuat]

What game is this?

Allods/Rage of Mages

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

The Faery Tale Adventure, 1986.

 

[deama]

 

[smaug]

Zed Duke of Banville that looks awful. Even The Bard’s Tale looks better.

 

[Bad Sector]

Everything about NWN looks awful. It's like they grabbed some random intern and told them to make the art. Even the 3D models look terrible by 2002 standards -- it released after games like Metal Gear Solid 2 and around the same time as No One Lives Forever 2.

These are not comparable though, NWN1 had to display a lot of models for the aerial perspective, the models were made up of multiple reusable pieces (limbs, heads, weapons, items, etc) that needed to be loaded in memory (since in online mode any character could wear anything, so they couldn't be precached), the worlds were also made up of reusable pieces and they were often animated. The lighting in NWN1 was realtime (and at the time it was done in CPU, as well as the animation) for all affected geometry with multiple light sources and realistic volumetric shadows for each light source - a method that requires watertight meshes (meaning they had to put geometry even in places you couldn't see - there are a couple of places in Shadows of Undrentide where they didn't do that properly and shadows glitch in the entire scene) and due to silhouette calculations it imposes a low polycount (see how Doom 3 and F.E.A.R. which used the same shadow method had overall lower polygon counts than the previous games from their respective developers - though they also had normal maps, which NWN1 lacked since GPUs couldn't do that at the time :-P). The lack of weighted skeletal animation was also most likely done to save CPU time considering the amount of animated character models on screen. Also the artists didn't really know how these assets will be used since NWN1 was largely meant to be played with custom content and/or online, so it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

NOLF2 on the other hand is made up of heavily preprocessed maps that remove any unseen geometry, have precalculated lighting in lightmaps, the shadows are projected black textures that fade out over a distance, show only a small part of the map from a low height perspective, have only a few repeated high poly models (and those are not modular but instead made as a single piece), the designers are in complete control over what and how many models each map area will use (meaning if they can place a few high fidelity models in an area without fear that they could go over budget due to player actions).

Note that i'm not arguing that NWN1 looks better than NOLF2, the latter is obviously a better looking game and NWN1 could have had better looking art assets without affecting its polycount and texture work. However the two games are very different and have very different requirements from their respective rendering engines, which in turn affects how the art assets would be made and considering the limitations of the hardware at the time (i remember people playing it with their voodoos at the lowest settings), it wouldn't be possible to get NOLF2 quality graphics on NWN1 without also severely limiting NWN1's features.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Everything about NWN looks awful. It's like they grabbed some random intern and told them to make the art. Even the 3D models look terrible by 2002 standards -- it released after games like Metal Gear Solid 2 and around the same time as No One Lives Forever 2.

These are not comparable though, NWN1 had to display a lot of models for the aerial perspective, the models were made up of multiple reusable pieces (limbs, heads, weapons, items, etc) that needed to be loaded in memory (since in online mode any character could wear anything, so they couldn't be precached), the worlds were also made up of reusable pieces and they were often animated. The lighting in NWN1 was realtime (and at the time it was done in CPU, as well as the animation) for all affected geometry with multiple light sources and realistic volumetric shadows for each light source - a method that requires watertight meshes (meaning they had to put geometry even in places you couldn't see - there are a couple of places in Shadows of Undrentide where they didn't do that properly and shadows glitch in the entire scene) and due to silhouette calculations it imposes a low polycount (see how Doom 3 and F.E.A.R. which used the same shadow method had overall lower polygon counts than the previous games from their respective developers - though they also had normal maps, which NWN1 lacked since GPUs couldn't do that at the time :-P). The lack of weighted skeletal animation was also most likely done to save CPU time considering the amount of animated character models on screen. Also the artists didn't really know how these assets will be used since NWN1 was largely meant to be played with custom content and/or online, so it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

NOLF2 on the other hand is made up of heavily preprocessed maps that remove any unseen geometry, have precalculated lighting in lightmaps, the shadows are projected black textures that fade out over a distance, show only a small part of the map from a low height perspective, have only a few repeated high poly models (and those are not modular but instead made as a single piece), the designers are in complete control over what and how many models each map area will use (meaning if they can place a few high fidelity models in an area without fear that they could go over budget due to player actions).

Note that i'm not arguing that NWN1 looks better than NOLF2, the latter is obviously a better looking game and NWN1 could have had better looking art assets without affecting its polycount and texture work. However the two games are very different and have very different requirements from their respective rendering engines, which in turn affects how the art assets would be made and considering the limitations of the hardware at the time (i remember people playing it with their voodoos at the lowest settings), it wouldn't be possible to get NOLF2 quality graphics on NWN1 without also severely limiting NWN1's features.

KOTOR came out less than a year later using the (presumably enhanced) same engine, looking much better.
Most of your explanations are just excuses for laziness in not producing a real campaign with assets actually designed for it.

 

[Bad Sector]

Yes, KOTOR looks better but it also mostly removes the modular meshes (IIRC only heads and attachments like weapons were sort-of modular), there are less NPCs going around with less variety, the world lighting is precalculated, there are no realtime environmental shadows (only characters have shadows) and environments are made as single pieces instead of out of small reusable pieces. These affect heavily the renderer and what sort of content you can push through it. And similar to NOLF2, the artists/designers had more control over what stuff would appear on each scene, meaning they could budget it better.

Also KOTOR had much higher system requirements (1GHz PIII vs 450MHz PII, OpenGL 1.4 vs OpenGL 1.2, double the VRAM and RAM) and required hardware T&L support which allowed for higher polygon models (on NWN1 T&L was handled by the CPU).

I'm not arguing about the quality of the campaign (i personally find the OC boring and took me a couple of attempts to finish it), i'm explaining why NWN1 could not look like NOLF2 considering what it was attempting to do.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Yes, KOTOR looks better but it also mostly removes the modular meshes (IIRC only heads and attachments like weapons were sort-of modular), there are less NPCs going around with less variety, the world lighting is precalculated, there are no realtime environmental shadows (only characters have shadows) and environments are made as single pieces instead of out of small reusable pieces. These affect heavily the renderer and what sort of content you can push through it. And similar to NOLF2, the artists/designers had more control over what stuff would appear on each scene, meaning they could budget it better.

Also KOTOR had much higher system requirements (1GHz PIII vs 450MHz PII, OpenGL 1.4 vs OpenGL 1.2, double the VRAM and RAM) and required hardware T&L support which allowed for higher polygon models (on NWN1 T&L was handled by the CPU).

I'm not arguing about the quality of the campaign (i personally find the OC boring and took me a couple of attempts to finish it), i'm explaining why NWN1 could not look like NOLF2 considering what it was attempting to do.

You just rehashed what I said into a longer post: They took the time to make an actual game instead of blatantly lying to customers by selling them an editor with assets + sample module.

 

[Incendax]

Go Classic or go home!

 

[smaug]

Go Classic or go home!

Meh, The Bard’s Tale still looks better.

 

[thesheeep]

Meh, The Bard’s Tale still looks better.

Yeah...