Lephys

Whatever you say, Gromnir. Whatever you say...

... YES! 8D

Agreed. Someone says "he bumped into me and didn't apologize. I don't think that's right. HE SHOULD DIE!" And you respond with "Whoa whoa, yeah, he probably should apologize to you, you're right. But, I dunno if his not-doing that warrants death", and somehow, the hostility just gets re-directed at you. As if simply letting it die down like a fire would somehow harm the discussion. 8P

And I've already pointed out multiple times that I don't expect you to expect to discern them. I don't understand why you expect so hard to specifically not be able to tell the difference between characters you're controlling. I mean, at best, as with almost anything else of this nature (some human desire versus realism) -- invisible helmets, etc. -- I could see wanting it to be an option. But, I don't understand what's causing "the brain numb" regarding people being okay with being able to visually discern the difference. Do you expect to be able to tell the difference between a greatsword and an estoc? Or a sword and a dagger? 'Cause they've made it clear with that that they've exaggerated thing so as to make them visually dinstinguishable from one another. Does that also not matter? Same principle.

Maybe the spell effects, themselves, could just be a bunch of little spell icons, instead of the typical colored glowy particles? Or, you know, just the name of the spell, in text form, floating in 3D space around the caster/target. Let's just let the combat log do its job, and cut out the middle men, eh? Or, everyone could just call out their attacks by name, like in anime. 8D! "Minoletta's Minoorrrrr MISSILES!"

Actually, it is an explanation. It's not really a theory, since nature didn't anthropomorphically sit down and think "Hmmm... how will I make human females visually distinct? I know! PROTRUSIVE BOSOMS!" That's not how nature works. At some point in the evolution of humans, some females had absolutely no gene variance for protrusive bosoms, and some did. The ones that did were easily spotted and recognized by males, and oodles of extremely subtle factors later, the others' genetic line died off, thus the genes that were passed on included bosoms. If males had been able to detect females from a mile away via scent (as many animals pretty much can -- although the "mile" might be exaggerated, but I really don't know with any certainty that it isn't), then that visual distinction wouldn't have mattered much at all, and those of us around today would probably be different. Thus, why human females (as a gender of an animal species, in general, not "every single human female is a clone and there's no genetic variance within the species/gender") have external mammaries (as opposed to not-having them because they were useless and those who had them all dying off, etc.), is because of visual gender distinction. Also, I didn't say we weren't affected by pheromones, so you're not correcting me on anything. I said we don't use pheromones to discern each other's gender. And I'd say this is all pretty pertinent, since the usage of torso physiology is being questioned as some preposterous means by which to visually discern the gender of a simulated, virtual human being, when that's literally been a main function of the female torso's physiology since humans have even existed. I really don't mean this in a hostile fashion, but if you're tired of seeing people keep talking about something you're sick of, maybe just cease reading threads like this one, instead of simply expecting everyone else to just also be sick of the same things you're sick of, and never talk about them in discussions specifically centered around that topic. I'm sick of people driving terribly, every day, but I just try to stay off the roads and out of traffic as much as possible. I don't just sit around waiting for people to drive better.

Obviously, in PoE, people will just intuit each other's gender via soul detection. Which, actually, could get pretty crazy, if a guy's soul was reborn into a female body, or vice versa. So, hmm... maybe physiology really won't be helpful.

I'll respond with an equally ridiculous question: I suppose Gromnir doesn't rely upon his sense of sight to discern gender in any capacity? I'm certain it still makes the same amount of sense, no matter how much time has passed or what events have transpired.

I dunno. Scientists have studied animal physiology for a while now, and wondered why human females even have boobs, since most animals don't really (nothing that doesn't basically just look like pectoral muscles or otherwise male chests). They decided that, amongst humans, they provide the intuitive visual distinction between males and females of the species, since we, unlike many other animals, don't rely on scent/pheromones and such to discern gender. So, *shrug*

Not that there's a problem with icons, but having them be the reasoning behind why there aren't distinctive spell effects/animations seems a bit silly. Why even have spell animations in the first place? "If it's one of THESE spells, you don't need to look at the icons, as you can just tell by the animation/effect what has been cast. However, if it's part of spell group beta, you'll only be able to tell by the animation/effect that it's one of these 10 spells. You'll have to look at the particular icon for identification." At that point, wouldn't it be justified to have even another tier of spells? "These don't even have icons, but don't worry... you can still look at the combat log to figure out which one it is." I mean, the icons are good because they're visually intuitive. So why make non-visually-intuitive spell animations/effects, then justify it with "don't worry, 'cause this second thing exists that's visually intuitive."? If the goal is visually knowing what's going on, why is it okay for the spell casting visuals to drop the ball as long as someone else picks it up?

Oh, I fully agree. I'm just trying to think of the possibilities. Here's my thinking: You're playing an entirely new game, and you don't really know how everything works yet. You're going to pick up what you can (with a limited inventory space, in this example), but you're not yet worried about making a bunch of trips or anything. You can't do that 'til you sell what you've got anyway. So, you go to town, and find out that the local blacksmith only wants so much scrap metal, or only wants items for such-and-such purposes, etc. So, now, you just never make the decision "Okay, it would probably be prudent to gather up every scrap of loot I can find," because the game's made it clear it's no infinite money supply. That's what I'm thinking. Not so much the whole market fluctuation thing, with merchants buying stuff now, but then not buying it later, but then going back to buying it again, and/or with varying prices, etc. That's definitely a hassle. Especially because there aren't really set times when you'll be at a merchant or not, and scheduling all your adventures according to some merchant economy kind of clashes with the regular pace of gameplay. But, I would just find it refreshing if the game didn't simply offer up all the super-common loot as always able to be converted into money. Of course, with this limitless stash, that all becomes a bit moot for this particular game. I was mainly commenting on the sentiments expressed about mega-looting behavior in general. I just find it hard to say "I know that stuff's guaranteed money, but it's just supposed to be there, as commonly as it is, for verisimilitude. You're not supposed to want to use it to obtain money, you crazy person."

I would imagine there might be slight class-based differences in attack speed, but I'd like to see them more as modifiers. For example, a monk might attack faster with his fists (obviously) than anyone else will with their fists, but he'd probably attack far slower with a Great Maul than a Barbarian who specializes in Great Mauls. That, and a Fighter might attack much faster with a longsword (if he's trained with it and all, being a Fighter) than a Wizard does with a dagger or something (if he's not very trained with it, as he probably gets fewer/lesser weapons training/proficiency than a Fighter, be it inherently or via progression/allocatable points/choosable talents, etc.). I'm not overly fond of the just flat attack speed ratings for characters. That gets a little Action RPG-y. Really, I think it could all be handled by some form of Proficiency modifiers. But, I'd definitely like to see that. Maybe some classes start with inherent proficiency bonuses to certain weapon groups (or just an allocatable bonus "feat," as in, your Fighter starts with 1st-level proficiency in any one weapon group, but you pick what it is at creation, versus other classes starting at level-0 proficiency bonus, or level-1 with only a specific weapon, etc. *shrug*). As for the armor thing, that's pretty much in, exactly. If I'm not mistaken, that's what armor does; slows your "Action speed," which I believe includes not only standard weapon attacks, but also casting and abilities, etc. Maybe even item usage? I think anything that requires time to perform, in-combat, gets affected by armor "encumbrance." And, as for what we know of how proficiencies will be in the game, I think Josh has talked about how there will be proficiency choices for groups of weapons (like... polearms, etc, instead of just "Weapon Proficiency -- Halberd" or "Weapon Proficiency -- Spear"), BUT, I don't know if groups are the only proficiency-related options that will exist, and/or what else there will be. Maybe you can specialize in polearms, but focus on one particular polearm? So, for super simple example purposes, you'd get +2 with any polearm, but +4 with a halberd or something. Oh! Also, as for combat styles affecting attack speed, I remember at some point there being discussion of the Fighter's Defender Mode decreasing his attack speed. However, I don't know if that was an idea just being tossed around (Because it increases his defensive/engagement capabilities, so the trade-off was most clearly going to be a detriment to his offensive capabilities, which could be a number of factors) or what, but I think the current design has it only affecting his Accuracy? I'm not sure on that. I'd like to see stances/styles affect this, though. Maybe some Furious Assault-type ability or something that increases your attack speed for, say, 10 seconds, but at the cost of decreased defense for the duration? You'd be more likely to get hit whenever the enemy struck at you but you'd be guaranteed to get in more potential hits than your foe in that given time. Well, assuming he wasn't already attacking faster than you... Anywho, suff like that would be cool.

^ Was not aware of the existence of that official line. Thanks for sharing, ^_^

^ Me too. I didn't mean to suggest I imagined it looking like the above images. The posted images simply made me think of, essentially, badass characters who also were quite theatrical and dressed in a colorful/flourishy manner, which made me think of Thom Merrilin and his cloak. Of course, I know he didn't usually wear it around when trying to hide from adversaries and/or combat things, but... still. I think he did technically fight with a couple of times throughout those stories, whenever there was fighting to do in the middle of a tavern/his-gleemanry. That, and the whole "it's a video game, and we like our aesthetic choices, even though they wouldn't be practical and such" thing. Like with dye colors and stealth, or invisible helmets. TL;DR... Thom Merrilin rocks, and now I want a Gleeman Rogue.

No worries; I know. I was only being silly. I am wondering the exact same thing. In a lot of the older games, it seems like there were very few actual base sets. I mean, with the three quality "tiers," we'll already have... well, basically three times that number of individual armor sets, plus further variants (I'm assuming you can still have either Normal Plate of Fire Protection, or Exquisite Plate of Fire Protection, for example). But, it'd be nice if there were a goodly variance of just armor types. Again, though, that's with the mindset of typical games' approach (no distinctive quality tiers for each type) in mind. If we have those 8, with three variants for each, then different enchantments and other unique attribute factors on top of that, I will be VERY happy.

I'm calling it now: The big "problem" in the world (at the heart of the narrative) has something to do with the quantity of souls (either in existence, wholeness, or within the cycle) dwindling. Really, though, that's very interesting. We know souls shatter sometimes, etc. So, either they eventually mend, or they eventually deteriorate and cease to exist and new ones are made, OR the soul "population" in the universe is finite and already dwindling, whether or not people know it. That would be pretty interesting, though. The main storyline of Castlevania: Lords of Shadow had to do with souls ceasing to leave the "mortal realm" and enter the afterlife. Even though the story bit was kinda overshadowed by sheer gameplay and combat (and terrible camera angles) in that game, it's still an interesting concept. That, or what if someone's devised a way to control the process of rebirth, and is having all the people who die be reborn in precisely the manner he (the bad guy) wishes? Hmmm...

I love how the whole "then dudes need giant codpieces!" thing always comes up in this. The armor is being (albeit, historically inaccurately) custom-fitted to whatever torso is wearing it, as it is torso armor. Thus, a difference in the torso registers. The male armors are slightly more male-torso shaped, overall (they're not just perfectly identical to the female ones, but without boob-trusions -- they're completely different base character models with armor then applied atop). So, while I'm totally not against codpieces on armor, that isn't somehow mandated by the Fairness Fairy purely because females have a differently shaped torso. For that to somehow be even, female armor would all have to have extra, separate boob pieces that went on in addition to the regular torso armor. This really isn't rocket science. It's a slight abstraction. There's a reason for it. It's not hurting anybody. Also, Amentep pointed out something very useful: The choice to have the (subtle) visual distinction of torso armor shape to "see" which character that is remains far less impractical than having your character run around "without a helmet," just so you can see their spiffy head and hair. "Yeah, I know it protects my head... it's still there, it's just invisible. Why? For no functional reason at all, other than that the player wants to see under it, ^_^" Let's commence the complaint caravan regarding that horrible injustice, shall we? That or the fact that you can make your whole party neon yellow (dyed cloth options), and still they can sneak right on past all the enemies in the game. Take your pick.

^ It's Shake 'n' Back, and we helped! Okay, my jokes have reached a new low. *shame*

^^ Those outfits would be pretty cool for Chanters and dancer/theatrical-type characters. That last shot, with the masks, is interesting. I like those masks, . That said, you'd definitely have to adjust the colors a bit for stealth purposes, haha. But, seeing as how it's a game, and we can already tint our cloth Chevy Orange *most likely* and not have stealth mechanically effected, it would be an acceptable abstraction, I suppose. Also, this type of attire brings to mind Thom Merrilin's patchwork-of-colors gleeman's cloak from The Wheel of Time saga.

You can't go around tossing words like "accessible" about. You've no idea the textual onslaught you shall invoke here! Quick! Hide!

Hear hear! *raises tankard*

Yeah, with our current uncertainty (well, I mean, without getting into religious beliefs and such... just what we actually KNOW in reality, and not what anyone has faith in or believes -- I'm not judging), we don't get to "rest assured" we will definitely re-cycle into a new form at some point after death. However, at the same time, we don't have to worry about that span of existence as well as our current one. We try to live right (or live however we decide to live with what we've got), and we get to figure ourselves out pretty well. I can't imagine having no clue what form you'd take when you "came back." "Will I be a crazed cannibal person? Will I be a poisonous plant creature? Will I be born with 73 diseases, but somehow survive for an entire lifetime?" etc. Not to mention all the reasoning that will surface for such things as being reborn with a shattered soul, or simply having any undesirable trait whatsoever. "You have red hair because YOU WERE EVIL IN YOUR PAST LIFE, AND YOU'VE BEEN MARKED! BURN RED-HAIRED PEOPLE!"

^ If you didn't just read my reference in the current boob-scale concept discussion, this is an extremely funny coincidence.

Sometimes. Sometimes it's a treatment for the side effects of already-present abstraction that stem from stretching a single narrative out into a multiverse of possible advancement factors. If you can help guy A kill guy B, or vice versa, then which guy remaining alive is the way the world should be, and which is the "adjustment"? No one can answer that, but somehow they can answer "Which is the way the world should be: That you encounter this tougher version of EvilPlotRelatedWizard, or this slightly less-tough version of EvilPlotRelatedWizard, based on your choices?" I just don't understand it. What if you were an Elf, and the story, from the get-go, has some Elven faction secretly tailing you, whom you run into when you reach some particular town. But, if you were a DWARF, something entirely different goes on. How is that not adjusting content based on your sheer character attributes? An enemy can be a completely different foe, based solely on who you are and what you've done, but heaven forbid it be a different instance of the same foe.

My bad, Gromnir. I fear I partially misunderstood your posts. I actually read that part about female gamers not wanting to be indistinguishable (read it as the opposite of the negative -- "distinguishable" instead of "INdistinguishable"). Human brain error, but still my bad. Also, for the record, you do things your way, and I do things mine. I meant no disrespect with the quotes. I type things in quotes to paraphrase, to simply signify "this is a spoken sentence" rather than just part of the words in my post. If no one else sees it that way, maybe I need to not do that, since it's obviously ineffective. As for not treating me like an imbecile, you may not have called me an imbecile, but I find it a bit unnecessary to peg my opinion and argument as so utterly and blatantly preposterous. I don't feel the need to say "Perhaps your expectations are tainted by extreme feminists who hate the female form?" or anything. I understand your difference of opinion, and am simply presenting what I can observe about the given situation from my own perspective, which is that, yes, it really isn't that abstracted/exaggerated, all things considered. Yes, real-life scale armor is decently rigid, but plenty of fantasy designs have fictional construction methods, resulting in more flexible scale armors. Look at the newest Thor films, for example. His arm coverings are scale armor, but they're quite fitting. He doesn't have any boobs, so it's not able sexualizing the armor. It's simply fictionally made of stronger metal scales, and apparently attached in a better/more flexible fashion than our historical scale armors. To say that individual pieces of metal can not possibly be attached together in a torso-covering fashion so as to allow enough pliability to produce an aesthetically distinct female torso form is really not very reasonable, to be honest. I'm never going to try to get you to like the design, especially not just because I do or something. I don't even prefer this design over the other. I'm not insistent that there be female torso shapes in the armor. Just for the record. I simply see it as not anywhere close to extreme (a very mild exaggeration), and not really problematic for the game's design. That's simply how I feel, and I don't feel like exaggerations such as that cheerleader attire is more subtle than this scale concept. I bet you we could scan a cheerleader into a 3D-modeling program, then compare the physical dimensions/proportions of the two models, right now, and the scale concept would mathematically be far less pronounced/distinguished from a male armor-wearing torso. So, again, feel free to disagree and dislike it. But, I'm not going to feel like I have no basis for being okay with it, just as I wouldn't expect you to feel like there's absolutely no reason not to like it. I simply see no reason to act as though it's objectively preposterous. But, that's just me, I suppose.