Quick comment back, but I don't want to engage too far into this, since we're discussing BG3's UI...
Solata:
- Everything is too big. The interface takes up a very large part of the screen and the buttons are huge.
- Just like in BG3, Solasta repeats the character's portrait and hit points (why?).
- Not all buttons need to be named if the icons are self-explanatory.
- The graphic design does not convey the idea of fantasy adventure, it is too modern. In this case, BG3, Pathfinder, PoE, or even Tyranny are better.
Okay, so... this may be an issue of screen size, perhaps, because on my screen, the size of the UI and the amount of screen it takes up compared to the play space is not oversized or intrusive at all.
Another poster already mentioned why it is generally conventional ideal to have both a visual display and a direct number display equally available; this isn't a criticism - it's how it should be.
Strong, Strong disagree on removing labels from buttons. I'm sick to death of the ever increasing trend in the past two or three years to reduce, and reduce and reduce things based on the assumption that everyone will just know what your icon means. Sorry, that doesn't always track, and in fact it often doesn't. An icon that makes perfect intuitive sense in one person's mind will bee unintelligible without explanation to a different person, who thinks or reasons differently. Icons are nice, but they are not a replacement substitute for having a marked label as well, in my personal opinion.
The graphic design is for a UI: It's already on OUR side of the 4th wall. It's NOT a part of the fantasy adventure - it's our personal interface for interacting with the fantasy adventure. It's most idea situation is to be unnoticeable and practically invisible to our subconscious as we use it. A clear, clear but otherwise nondescript UI is one (not the only, but one) way of achieving that invisibility. But regardless, this is an aesthetic complaint.
==
I think it would be neat if Solasta offered us a couple of different UI layout styles to choose form ,since they don't allow direct customisation. I'm not going to disagree there - that would be great. Failingthat, however, the one that they do provide is functionally ideal for playing a D&D game - aesthetics aside if you don't like them, it's practically perfect, with only a few minor quibbles.
Divinity Original Sin 2:
- The bar occupying the entire bottom of the screen is much less intrusive (same as the first UI made for BG3 before its released).
It's frightfully awful. It's one bar for literally everything, autofills with whatever it damn well feels like, requires clunky bar switching, because, again, literality everything you can do all has to get crammed onto it, no matter whether it's a skill, a special spell, a unique ability or a consumable item.... all with no ordering except the ordering you give it - which is tedious and annoying to DO, and a timesink, especially when you may be changing your abilities around, acquiring new ones or trading them out for others on the regular. Managing that abominable thing was one of the things I detested most about that game (along with their approach to inventory and gear management in general). It's the number one poster child of what not to do, ever.
