Stiler

I'd like to see a bit of both older medieval era and Renaissance , the clothing designs and things from the Renaissance are quite appealing from a visual standpoint. I mean having a character wearing something like this: http://www.pearsonsrenaissanceshoppe.com/french-highwayman-coat.html that would be cool, and fit quite well knowing there's both melee weapons/bows as well as guns, it'd fit within the time period.

The Witcher I/II has done it the best imo. Your choices weren't strictly black and white/good or bad and the affects of your choices could come back much later into the game instead of right after you make it. I hope PE has some fairly decent choices (and it isn't good/bad but rather morally grey) and the affects of your choices aren't immediate or known until later. It makes the world feel more alive and gives more meaning behind what you do.

Yeah that was what i was the point i was trying to make at first. They were great for mobility, for use with light weapons for the speed and protect the sword hand. One piece of text doesnt mean it was the unmovable object. It was good at what it was used for and that wasnt for blocking heavy weapons... but sometimes soem peopel can not be swayed from their view I'm not arguing with you anymore, if you want to ignore facts and can't understand bucklers were'nt restricted to being used with rapiers or only by pirates or something like you think. I never said they were unmovable objects and you're just putting words in my mouth. I have presented you with facts, details from both art, excerpts from FIRST HAND accounts of people that actually lived during those times and you are going by a youtube video of two guys in modern times sparring with rubbertipped weapons and no armor.

Bioware has done this a bit with both Mass Effect and Dragon Age. I too would like to see PE use companions during conversations. Especially with their own opinions on the matter as well.

Where are you getting your information? sources/links? A buckler could be used with many different one-handed weapons, it wasn't restricted to short-swords or rapiers like you seem to think. On page 2 of that link I posted it specifically goes into the details about how knights used it and gives proof of this, many artworks from that actual time period showing it being used by full armored knights and others in battles, training, etc. "another similar painting depicting Charles of Blois being taken prisoner in 1347 (BNF FR 2643) portrays one of his knightly captors wearing at his left thigh a small colored buckler hanging upon his longsword. Over all, bucklers outnumber larger arm-worn shields by a ratio of roughly 5 to 1 in such 14th and 15th century artwork." As far as that video goes, it's two guys sparring in modern times. The guy using the buckler/sword isn't trying to get in close (where the spear guy is the weakest). It would take a dodge/block of his thrust (or grabbing his spear if he misses) and then rushing in close and the spear guy is useless with that spear. in the video the guy keeps at range (where the spear is the strongest) and never even tries this. because it isn't easy to get in close when someone has a spear??? range advantage? the times he tries he gets a spear int he face. if you look on the web there is lots of sources that show what i am saying, but some people minds can not be changed form an opinion and dismiss even video evidence. so i tire of this *yawn* What are thees sources you speak of? I am giving you sources that actually date FROM that time period, artwork, letters, manuscripts that actually depict people in that real time period. You have only shown me a video in modern times with two people sparring and not real fighting. The spear has the range advantage, the buckler/sword has close quarters advantage. It comes down more to skill then what that video shows. If he blocks the spear thrust, dodges it, or grabs the spear, he can close in and kill him. Meanwhile if the spear guy fakes him out stabs he can win. It's not a "the spear will win or the sword will win" it's about who has the better skill here. Also it would depend on armor too, a spear vs a guy with a sword/buckler wearing full plate armor, the spear would likely not penetrate the armor even if he does hit him unless he hits him in the visor of his helmet. I'm not say you're wrong, or I'm right when it comes to "who'd win, spear vs sword?" I am merely saying it's too much of a skill toss up and neither of us can say for sure the sword would win or the spear, sorry if I confused you. This is starting to get a bit more toward polearms/vs swords and I'd rather keep it on topic of bucklers/shields if you please.

Where are you getting your information? sources/links? A buckler could be used with many different one-handed weapons, it wasn't restricted to short-swords or rapiers like you seem to think. On page 2 of that link I posted it specifically goes into the details about how knights used it and gives proof of this, many artworks from that actual time period showing it being used by full armored knights and others in battles, training, etc. "another similar painting depicting Charles of Blois being taken prisoner in 1347 (BNF FR 2643) portrays one of his knightly captors wearing at his left thigh a small colored buckler hanging upon his longsword. Over all, bucklers outnumber larger arm-worn shields by a ratio of roughly 5 to 1 in such 14th and 15th century artwork." As far as that video goes, it's two guys sparring in modern times. The guy using the buckler/sword isn't trying to get in close (where the spear guy is the weakest). It would take a dodge/block of his thrust (or grabbing his spear if he misses) and then rushing in close and the spear guy is useless with that spear. in the video the guy keeps at range (where the spear is the strongest) and never even tries this.

The buckler was still in use during that time period, when other shields had fallen out of favor because of guns, etc. That shows you how versatile it was. It doesn't mean it was only used then, it was used LONG before that time period and I do not know owhy you think it's only effective vs thin armor opponents? It's a shield, you still use a weapon... AS a shield goes, the buckler was far more versatile to use in melee combat then other shields, hence why many knights, in full plate armor, fighting against other knights, in full plate armor, used them.

HAHAHAHAHHA.......nope Do you post anything constructive on these forums? Why do you think not? I'd encourage you to read the link I posted. Bucklers were actually one of the best counters to pole weapons on the battlefields, and I quote: "The infamous Machiavelli himself in his own 1521 Arte of Warre, wrote of how at the battle of Barletta in 1503 the Spanish sword and buckler men dealt with the Swiss pikemen: “When they came to engage, the Swiss pressed so hard on their enemy with their pikes, that they soon opened their ranks; but the Spaniards, under the cover of their bucklers, nimbly rushed in upon them with their swords, and laid about them so furiously, that they made a very great slaughter of the Swiss, and gained a complete victory.” As far as having your arm broke, not if you block it no. A bigger shield would also affect your vision which was another advantage smaller shields like bucklers had. As far people in plate, actually bucklers were used by many knights, in full plate. Because of it's quickness/light weight. Another quote from that link I gave: "In the Middle Ages, bucklers were common armaments among both knights and common soldiers – even more so than shields."

The elf concept art looks nice and gives me hope there'll be at least some kind of hybrid mage/warrior. Also perhaps a hood up/down function?

I would like to talk about shields. Throughout history shields have been an important part of combat, there are many types of shields from your small bucklers to the larger tower shields and so on.Shields had many differences amongst them and ways in which they were used for various combats. Shields did not have to be big, and bigger shields did not mean the shield was better. In most rpg games that is how it is though. The bigger the shield, the better it is. You usually get small bucklers early on that are crappy, and later on get into tower shields and the like that are treated as better shields. This is just not how shields actually are. Each shield type had both advantages and disadvantages. Bucklers for example, are very small and light shields. They were used for the longest time throughout history, longer then any other shield type. Bucklers were held in your hand (Rather then being strapped to your arm like larger shields) and with the lightness/speed of it was also a very offensive weapon as well as defense. The bucklers could be varied, from having a spike on the front, sharp edges around it (that could cut) to having a latch that could catch weapons and things. Also because it was simply held in your hand, you could let go/drop it, so if someone grabbed the shield and tried to pull you off balance you could simply let go, unlike larger shields. As well because it was small/light it was much quicker to react and block sword strikes and other melee weapons. More detailed info/sources: http://www.thearma.o...dandBuckler.htm The disadvantages of it are also in it's size though. Because it's so small it wasn't great at protecting you from range and left parts exposed to arrows and such. However in terms of melee combat, the buckler was by far the best shield for one on one melee fighting. It lasted even after shields started to fall out of place into the later Renaissance (IE swashbucklers). Larger shields on the other hand offered better range protection. Covering more parts of the body. It was also better in terms of formation fighting (See the Romans). I'd love if shields were treated more realistically in PE, where if you wanted to make your character a kind of dex-based fighter who relies on speed you could use a sword+buckler combination and have many offensive moves with it whereas another character could go more str based with a larger shield and be more defensive focused. If shields had more details on them. For example smaller shields had a higher chance to block blows (because they are lighter/quicker you can move them faster) but less of a chance to block range attacks. Whereas larger shields offered slightly less reaction time ibut better range protection. Just something more realistic and not "bigger = better."

I'd love to see Flails, not maces but flails. Usually not in most games, or if they are it's not a major weapon type/done well. Also I'd love to see poleaxes or some kind of polearms that aren't treated as "one basic attack" weapons. To be able to use each type of attacks, such as the thrusting point on some, an dthen the cleave of the axe part, or to use the back side to pull people down like they could. Many polearms had multiple ways of attacking, but most games treat it as one type and ignores all of the different things you could do with them.

I do not want it to have weight in my game, however I support the option for there to be a weight on gold for those who wish to play with it as such. Perhaps on their extreme difficulty level (then you can turn gold weight on/off or whatever).

One thing I worry about, "Next up, figure out exactly where that character shines in terms of the game mechanics – why would a player bring this companion along? Are they a tank, a healer, or perfect for sniping enemies from a mile away? This shouldn’t overlap with another companion’s specialty if you can help it." In the video you mention how a companion should be optional and you shouldn't feel the need to have to take that character. To me this clashes a bit. For example, in Dragon Age: Origins you had the ability to take your companiions and shape them toward what you wanted them to be. You could take Morrigan and if you wished give her some healing spells to make her be the healer in your party instead of having to take Wynee along, even though morrigan is geared toward shapeshifting and wynee toward healing when you first get them, over the course of leveling you had the ability to shape them into what role you wanted them to have. Then in Dragon age 2 they got rid of this, and made the companions have certain unique skill sets. If you wanted any healer in your party and you yourself weren't a mage/healer, you HAD to take Anders. Even if you didn't like the character (I didn't personally) you had to take him. You could no longer take another mage companion and shape them into what you wanted so you could use that character that you preferred. Will we be able to have control over a companions abilities in some way to shape them toward certain things we would need to better have a all around good group or will it indeed be locked?

Minotaurs is what I wish for as well I would not like to see minotaur as society. They are good as they are, an abomination. They are quest. They might even taste good, their horns have magical properties. They would be hunted to exctiction by humans centuries ago. Racial cleansing you say... /lol I would be ok with this, apart from the fact that I don't want any godlike party to be able to wipe an entire population in a region (a village is ok, a city maybe... a whole region... no way!) Anyway, back on topic: so what races are you exactly proposing? I like what they did in Arcanum. You had different races and it seemed they were all somehow conected. So basically you had dwarfs and as subspecies you had gnomes and haflings and mix of those. Humans are in game. So we can have as someone mentioned before Neanderthal type of men, like troglodytes, cromagnon man etc. For all that we know in this setting orcs might be humans that just developed differently or were at some point of evolution "touched" by Gods. Or other way around. There are a lot possibilities. Maybe some kind of reptilian biped? As long as they are belivable and rightly done. If there is solid backstory, lore and also there is appeal. With the "Godtouched" race we know that the Gods of the world exist in some form and can have an influence on things. I wouldn't see how it'd be out of place to have minotaur/centaurs if they already mention having a "Godtouch' race that's very noticeable from seeing them (And how often people react to them) I'd think a minotaur, especially a centaur, would be much more welcoming amongst normal humans.

I'm not sure it's fair to put them against each other. The Dwarf image looks more fleshed out artistically with it's coloring which the other two images lack.

Baldur's Gate was an older game at a much lower resolution. It's 2012 and many pc players have screens that are even larger then your 1920x1080. On top of that the details of things will likely be much greater then they were in BG and those classic rpgs where computers were using much much lower quality processors/ram/video cards. Also if you read the faq it mentions that the camera will probably be zoomable, and characters will be 3d.

And you think this is important enough that developers of a game in which strategy is FAR more important than cosmetic fluffery should spend their time on such a thing? I have said before in this thread, this is not a huge priority thing. I do not put this ahead of any gameplay related things or story/dialogue. However It's not a huge massive undertaking, or something that would require huge resources. Plus from a development standpoint, all developers do not work on everything. Just because you have a programmer program this, does not take away from what an artist does or a writer.

Serious question for you. I brought up Storm of Zehir earlier. Specifically how my main character picked up a Batiri mask which looks hilarious and ridiculous but has great stat enhancements which fit perfectly for my character. Would you not think your own character, were he or she real, would prefer utility over looks in an environment where one's own survival is tenuous due to their hostile surroundings? Of course they would in the real world. Also in the real world "armor/weapons" wouldn't have stats either, it would be a skill-based system where the person with the higher skill/trianing would easily beat someone , even if that person had better equipment then him/her. However for the game, with this system the beauty of it is that you don't have to make that choice. You can get that mask that you think looks bad on your character, and in turn replace the model with one that looks right/fits your character and not be underpowered. This is all just my opinion though, and it's nothing that would have to be forced on anyone, if you don't want to have to make the trade off and want to wear the mask you can. Meanwhile those of us who would like to upgrade our equipment but be able to keep our characters looking reasonable/how we think looks best, could, without being penalized for making such a choice.

I don't think people want to play dress-up. I do think people like to be able to give their characters a "certain look" when they create them to greater or lesser degrees. That was one of the huge problems DA2 had and a reason why so many people complained. So if you want to do that go and play DA2. As I recall, one of the problems in DA2 was precisely the opposite. The customization, especially for companions, was minimal. Not really. Yes there was no customization because for the sake of this argument. They did not want to lose the special look they had so they had no armor at all and so the look only changed through the story or better these time skips. That'ts the problem, it took the choice from the player, which is the opposite of what this is about. It's about giving the choice to the player to determine if they would want to keep a look or change it. IN DA2 you couldn't, hell you couldn't even choose a race anymore, and companions , forget that.

People keep saying this, have you ever TRIED it? Go ahead, play through an rpg with the starting armor/low level items, never upgrade it, see how far you get. It's not an option "not to wear it" except within a few small levels. Like it or not armor is something you have to upgrade (Within reason) in rpgs, you can't just "not wear" armor you don't like if it's a lot better, especially if you are playing on the harder difficulty. How is it taking the roleplaying out? To me it seems to be doing the opposite. Your paladin for example. Instead of being able to upgrade his "paladin" armor which fits his character you instead are FORCED to wear the "black/evil" looking armor or to have to be extremely underpowered and constantly dying to higher diffculty/level enemies that drop you fast because your armor is underleveled for that point in the game. MEanwhile if you had this ability, you could "keep" the look of your paladin and not be forced to wear items that is out of character for him, BUT you wouldn't be "underpowered" or penalized for doing so. Is there any game where you had to wear "evil armour" to succeed? Are Paladins really suppose to care about their looks that much? If evil armour less evil if you paint it white? Why do you even care what your character looks like? Paladins probably won't be included in the game. In many rpgs the higher lv armor could have "spikes/skull" motif's on higher lv armor (Because to many people that look is "Cool."). The Paladin was his example, I was merely using it as a reverse point of how it would likely play out in an rpg.

People keep saying this, have you ever TRIED it? Go ahead, play through an rpg with the starting armor/low level items, never upgrade it, see how far you get. It's not an option "not to wear it" except within a few small levels. Like it or not armor is something you have to upgrade (Within reason) in rpgs, you can't just "not wear" armor you don't like if it's a lot better, especially if you are playing on the harder difficulty. How is it taking the roleplaying out? To me it seems to be doing the opposite. Your paladin for example. Instead of being able to upgrade his "paladin" armor which fits his character you instead are FORCED to wear the "black/evil" looking armor or to have to be extremely underpowered and constantly dying to higher diffculty/level enemies that drop you fast because your armor is underleveled for that point in the game. MEanwhile if you had this ability, you could "keep" the look of your paladin and not be forced to wear items that is out of character for him, BUT you wouldn't be "underpowered" or penalized for doing so.

It's not a lot of options we are asking for, but a simple UI toggle element or some form to take an already existing model and use it in place of another model. But this is entirely pointless. Armours have certain look to allow player to know which armour is everyone wearing. It would make as much point as making a tank look like a Jeep because Jeeps are pretty. You can't use MMO argument since it makes sense in MMO because other people look at you and you want them to praise your sense of aesthetic. Nobody look at your character when you are playing single-player RPG besides your girlfriend/siblings and they shouldn't be too picky. Maybe you missed it earlier in the thread but it applies to things of the same type only. So you could only change the "look" of a piece of plate armor with another piece of plate armor, or a greatsword with another greatsword, you wouldn't be able to change the type of item, IE changing cloth to a plat earmor look or a dagger into an axe. That would create problems animation wise and other things.

Err I'm not sure what you mean. How does being able to use one of their hand crafted items, find one of them you really like the look of and prefer it's looks over another and wish you could keep that "look" and being able to do so how is that a waste of resources for the developers (You will likely find more then one armor/weapon you like int eh game, but here and there items you just don't like the look of)? As far as "just don't use the item" well you try that, that's not a way out, it's not viable. In an rpg it's extremely diffcult if you were to try and take a lower lv armor and keep it throughotut he game, it's not an option (for anyone who actualyl wants to play the game normally and beat it ) to "just not use new equipment."

It's not a lot of options we are asking for, but a simple UI toggle element or some form to take an already existing model and use it in place of another model.

I don't give a rats ass how you want your character to look. Adjust to the game and the setting. If Leather armor +1 look like X, then it looks like X. Period. You demonding that devlopers circumvent their own world is an insult ot the developers. Pay the price for the looks you want like everoyne else or use mods. Otherwise don't bother others with your vanity. Is it that hard for you to post without being so disrespectful to people and to use such knee jerk reactions? I am not expecting to look "EXACTLY HOW I ENVISION" or think the developers must do this or anything. I am just suggesting to allow us to wearing armor that they put into the game and be able to make the choice to keep that "look" if we like it instead of having to drop it for a better stat item of the same type.