Lephys

^ I'm talking about the shot of the red-attired hooded figure facing the metal-wearing figure, the one in the specific post I linked directly to. The shot at the top of the page, with the sentry standing about beside a rounded turret-like corner of a building is the one someone pointed out as "still floaty" a page or so back. If the only difference is simply the angle of the shadows, then I dare say there is still an issue with the floatyness, and that it seems to me to be entirely fixed by simply always having some portion of more substantial shadow immediately surrounding the character's feet (where they connect with the ground). The team knows what's what, so, just for what it's worth, I saw that someone pointed out that screenshot in the Arms and Armor thread, and I noticed the floatiness was not present in it, so I felt it worth noting.

^ True enough. Yeah, I'm just still running on their expressed intentions for the beta. Also, I would just point out that it wouldn't necessarily require the creation of additional/specific content. It could simply be a build with all the story stuff cut out, and/or a build that allows character creation, then just loads you into "random" combat encounters from map travel, or what have you. It doesn't necessarily have to be some whole new equation that contradicts the direction of the actual, completed game build.

Here's what I'd love to see: You feel like bettering your image, so you "generously" donate to some temple. Some people who don't know what else you've done see ONLY the donation, and think well of you. Others who know what you've already done are skeptical at best, and still hating you at worst. It turns out one-or-more of the temple officials are corrupt, and are skimming from the donations, etc. Those people couldn't care less what you did, and/or are MUCH more appreciative of your donations than people who are simply judging your act of generosity.

I find it rather simplistic when melee "maneuvers" and what-have-you are simply treated as "AOE." So, I'm with AGX on that one. A couple of abilities -- sweeps and such -- might work that way, but others should be handed in a specifically different fashion. Combos that strike multiple opponents, etc. Makes the melee combat that much more interesting, instead of just "damage area -- 5 foot radius; damage type -- sword", as opposed to "damage area -- 5 foot radius; damage type -- fire."

Backers who intentionally sought out the game on Kickstarter, knowing all about it before it was even created, etc. And/or folks who know enough about the game and are interested enough to voluntarily travel to the site (they didn't accidentally happen upon a cRPG's website, then spontaneously purchase beta access). I'm not philosophically debating the meaning of terms, here. I'm simply pointing out what I've observed about Steam Early Access. People, whether they should or not, tend to view that as just "getting to play something early, usually with more and more stuff added to it/improved in it as time goes on, until it's finally done." Thus, when it pops up on Steam, a bunch of people who frequent the Steam Store will see it, assume it's just literally Early Access to "the game" without really even reading about how under-wraps they're keeping all the story stuff (they'll think "Oh, I get to play the first few chapters or something!"), then get super upset when that isn't the case. Then you have an angry mob. That, plus the fact that the estimated funding from such an effort wouldn't exactly be exorbitant, seems to suggest a high probability that it isn't worth it. The only games I've seen do well with Steam Early Access were ones that literally just release the early version of the game, and build straight upon it. Like Rust, etc. Not "We'll just give you a little character-creation/combat balancing demo, but 80% of the game will only be playable once it's released." Just an observation, for what it's worth. It seems to me that the proposed style of PoE's beta would not fare well at all on Steam Early Access. Yeah, and you're already going to have irrationally disgruntled beta backers. I don't see that as a reason to slap the same build onto a publicly-frequented store, for a plethora more gamers to buy first and ask questions later, then make a big uproar about it like it wasn't their own faults. Especially not if the proceeds generated aren't going to be substantially significant.

Regarding the character floating, I think it's already fixed: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65175-armour-weapon-designs-part-v/?p=1453826 The screenshot in that post shows the characters being darker down near the ground, and having shadows that directly anchor their feet to the plane of the ground. So, I think that soldier standing near that structure, in this update, is some kind of fluke, or not-fully complete process/etc. Maybe it's a bug or something unintentional, but, at the very least, the screenshot in the link above shows that this is actually remedied in some instance of their engine's running.

It's a good thing they didn't "just" do that, and that their new stuff is new by happenstance, I'm fairly certain. I think their pre-production period would've been a wee bit shorter if their plan was just to make stuff that wasn't old. "Our writers spent 7 months figuring out how to merely do something that wasn't identical to anything else by the tiniest margin, quality be damned! 8D!" But hey... everyone's entitled to pessimism.

Just because an investigator is secret does not mean they are corrupt and/or gestapo-ish. If a criminal doesn't know who's an investigator, they don't know who they should be wary of. That's kind of the premise of any-and-all undercover operatives. Obsidian's use of "secret police" begs questions, not conclusions.

Considering the whole "story is under wraps" thing with this project, I can already tell you that Early Access is going to result in a LOT of people going "WTF?! This is just some paltry combat demo! I know no one SAID this was going to be an actual big coherent chunk of an actual full RPG that I get to play through, but I just assumed as much and now feel really bad and am going to sling a bunch of mud at you guys!" EA is playing with fire at the best of times (when you've actually got an "I get to play 'the game' early!" feel. With PoE's dodging of pretty much any and all story spoilers, I wager it'd do far more harm than good, even if handled as well as can possibly be.

We could go with "fampyrousness," or "fampyriality" or something. Now I want the official Animancy Association's slogan to be "Fampyrances can be deceiving."

I wonder if the main character or any of the companions will be/possibly become, ehh, "fampyric" at any point in the story. That could be pretty crazy. "Guys, I think it's about time for another 'jerky' break, don't you! 8D!"

I'm going to have a main character who's a Wizard, and just 5 Rogues to fill out the rest of the party. I'll just toss all the Obscuring Mists and debilitating effects I can, then have the Rogues swoop in like a swarm of bees. MUAHAHAHAHAHA!

The thing is, reputation isn't something that should "increase or decrease." That's too ambiguous. If you murder everyone in sight, your reputation's going to "increase"... but that doesn't tell you what your reputation will be. Just that you're going to be more known than before. But known for what? That's kind of the point. Luckily, PoE's rep system is supposed to be like this: It's like Legos. Everything you do builds your reputation, and different actions contribute different blocks. If you murder 700 children, then go donate at the temple, your reputation is made out of both of those blocks. One doesn't wipe out the other. If individual people (or factions) decide that your monetary contribution is more important than your children-murdering spree, then so be it. But it's not like you just wipe one away or something. Hell, if you're so notorious, you'd think the temple wouldn't even let you in there to donate. "WE DON'T WANT YOUR BLOOD MONEY! GUARDS!"

Gromnir, I grow tired of your irrelevant points that you arbitrarily attribute to me. How is mentioning that combat can be boring a "mr. strawman routine"? I didn't claim anyone was calling for combat to be boring. Also, I realize that opening a box doesn't have the same appeal as dispatching a foe. However, you also don't have to spend the duration of a combat encounter opening the box. And, again, I think the problem with opening a box being boring is if that's all there is to your efforts; if you jog your party around for 10 minutes doing a whole lot of nothing-else and/or boring stuff, solely for the purpose of getting to and opening the box, then it's lame. Not because of the act of opening the box, but because there wasn't anything else to it. If you dispatch a bunch of foes guarding a box, then open the box, then BOOM: You've just opened a box to acquire something, but you still did something meaningful in the process of getting to it. And yes, combat is one of the more prevalent mechanics of the game. Jogging around and clicking "open box" isn't. Thus, box-opening and plant gathering needs to be set into a more interesting context than just itself. That much is clear. But, there other more interesting mechanics to the game than just combat. So, it stands to reason that designing openable boxes and gatherable plants (basically, obtainable items in general) such that something interesting is done in the process of acquiring them is the desirable thing. This does not rule out the existence of plants or the storage of items in boxes, so I'm not seeing how having either is inherently negative or lackluster.

@Amentep: He's only wrong in that what he's saying is not congruent with my points. Naturally, though, it becomes some kind of "Okay, out of the two of us, who's right and who's wrong?" thing, instead of just taking what you can from both perspectives and collaborating on a better understanding. Which is just sad, to me. I'd love to continue a productive analysis regarding people in PoE-land seeking immortality via animancy, but I honestly don't even know what point he's trying to make anymore. *shrug* No worries. Maybe he's a genius and I'm an idiot. Who knows. Either way, the world will spin on if he and I don't continue this. And others will probably be all the better for it.

Blasphemer!!! SIEZE HIM! Everyone knows that everything we can possibly type here is absolutely useful, and we know more than some silly people who've actually worked in the industry for years and years do! u_u...

I think all the loading screens should be tributes to deceased features, such as romance and durability.

As per the night/day example screenshot, with the guard standing beside the turret/building corner, it seems like it's still a matter of their feet not quite "connecting" with the plane of the ground. Even though the character is, overall, matching the 2D background, he still looks like he's hovering mere inches (in-game-world inches) off the ground. He's really, really close, but he's not quite standing on it.

Yes, Gromnir. I still think drinking coffee is the same thing as becoming a ravenous undead. I told you, you nailed my thesis. I just can't comprehend how that isn't the case. Obviously I'm a lost cause, but thanks for trying.

What actually makes it a "mind numbing scavenger hunt," though? Is it okay to accidentally pass over a critter, but not a sarcophagus? If you've got nothing to do, at all, but hunt down a critter to gain its parts, then that's only marginally less mind-numbing than "hunting" down some flora. Luckily, it's simply one of the activities in which you can partake. Maybe you have other reasons to slay that critter. Maybe it's in your way. Etc. I'm seeing "gathering plants is boring," but I'm not seeing the reasoning behind what, exactly, makes that boring and other things not-boring. Combat? Just because combat is a big part of the gameplay? That's pretty circumstantial. There can still be boring, terrible combat. Again, with no other reason than to stand between you and the critter parts. How is that any different from simply 15 minutes of jogging standing between you and some plant? What if you have to fight the flora? Would that suddenly make everything okay? I agree that plenty of gathering (regardless of what it is, exactly, you're gathering) in plenty of games is, indeed, mind-numbing. However, I don't see "because it was plants!" as being any kind of cause of this mind-numbingness. I think there's a lot more to it than that, having nothing to do with the nature of the organism from whence the parts originate.

Name 1 person who has half green hair, and half blue hair, right this moment. You can't? Oh, well, obviously that proves that no one in the world would decide to do such a thing, 'cause you can't name them. Clearly. I don't care how you treat my coffee analogy. I asked why you were so focused on it. And you didn't answer that. You basically just re-iterated that I mentioned coffee, and that you can say whatever you want about it. Spiffy. You keep pointing out how all these things just aren't the same. People are people. There are intelligent rich noble people, and there are intelligent poor nobodies. There are ignorant rich people, and ignorant poor nobodies. There are people who believe things, and people who doubt things. They all just happen to be in various individual circumstances. But, what do I know. Literally everything I've said this whole time is 100% preposterous and wrong, while nothing you've said has been even the least bit inaccurate. Such is the nature of Gromnir. I concede to your absolution. No human being would ever risk becoming a cannibal for eternal life if such things actually occurred in the world, because everyone would mysteriously know, for a fact, what was going on, who was the cause, etc. Also, it's human nature to never take risks. Got it. Thanks.

It'll work more like a whole bunch of different bars, really. But, yeah, the idea behind a negative AND a positive is at least the right idea, like New Vegas. That, and, as far as I know, individuals will still have "their own bars" (Steve might be a member of The Holy PeopleFolk, who might generally look upon you with favor because you did something great for them, but Steve, himself, could hate your guts.)

I don't understand the question. Why plants in addition to critter parts? I dunno... why anything that wouldn't feasibly be dropped by something slain? Why books on bookshelves? Why objects in sarcophagi? ... Because they're useful? *shrug*. I mean, why critter parts, if not plants?

How do you know it's on our dime? And what better way to reinforce the whole crowdfunding thing than by going to THE expo of the year and pulling a Tom Hanks from Castaway -- "LOOK WHAT I HAVE CRE-A-TEDDDDD!!!!" Also, a vacation? You think they just mozy around from booth to booth during E3, like some random person who just decided to go for fun? They've got a lot of work to do there. Busy schedules and all that.

I don't want to make plant locations more obscure. I want to make the process of getting to them less mundane. Scripted interactions present scenarios with mechanical attribute/choice checks, rather than "can you spend enough time and click enough to get to this location, then click 'Harvest' on this plant?" The plant's right there, but it's not just lying on the ground easily within reach. You've got to actually play the game to obtain it, instead of simply jogging to it. Unless I'm mistaken, the whole boringness part of collecting herbs in the wild is that it's simply a matter of traveling and clicking. NOT the simple fact that they're plants, or that you're obtaining them. There's plenty of other stuff in the game we obtain, and it's perfectly fun to do so. I can only imagine the process is the flaw.