Lephys

How does it add randomness? It's not random whether or not a fireball's gonna go through an enemy or not. If you want to hit 10 enemies, and they're all lined up, you don't cast the AOE spell in front of the 1st enemy in the line, and expect it to hit all the rest. You'd cast it to one side or the other of the line. That's all. Precision isn't even an issue. You have like 2 spots where you don't want to target the spell/ability. Not to mention there will be spells and abilities for which this isn't even a factor, since they'll either penetrate targets or will strike the whole area from above, below, or via permeation. I don't see how making the game (which is already how it is) more reactive than cruder gameplay technologies have made games in the past is a bad idea. Heaven forbid we have to consider tactical factors in a game with tactical party-based combat. Let's just have fireballs travel through walls, too, since it might be too random when SOMEtimes you cast a spell at an enemy, and the darn wall stops it, but other times you'd have a clear line of sight and the spell would connect. I mean, that's a lot to keep up with. You have to actually apply mental effort to whether or not you should cast fireball at that enemy, from where your character is standing. Gyah... Mental sweat, much?

Yeah. I think the hotbars should be able to have buttons for all characters, as well, all together. So, if I click "Magic Missile" on the main hotbar, my Wizard casts it (or whomever's ability list I was in when I made that button), whereas when I click "Whirlwind Strike," my Warrior uses it. Basically, what you said, only carried into the clickable interface as well.

Oh. My mistake. Well, for what it's worth, I still think straight-out failure should actually affect the on-going gameplay, rather than simply being a super-gamey matter of "well, you didn't get this sword or this other quest, but, otherwise, absolutely nothing is different." You know, like every quest is all about you and is completely separate from the game world. I'd much rather see a lot of "I can't BELIEVE you let our son die in the hands of those orcs! I'm totally going to join some faction against you, and you'll have to deal with me later!", as opposed to "I don't like you now, 'cause you didn't save my son, so I'll not give you things, and you'll never hear from me again or see the effects of any actions I perform in any surroundings or ANYthing! I'm just going to go stare at a wall for the rest of your playthrough." Ya know? I don't want a quest failure to feel like a quest failure, but like an actual game-world person failure, with consequences and a connection to the ongoing passage of time and happenings. That's all I meant (although I was confused about the specific intent of your post, which I am not now.)

I just wanted to chime in on the matter of space-efficiency with the UI and say that I HIGHLY urge you to consider the invaluability of "blooming" menus for things like abilities and spells. What I mean is, the hotbar is totally fine for put-whatever-you-want-here, most-used active buttons, but when I'm picking a spell to cast in combat, I don't want to be limited to either quickly casting it if it's on the hotbar OR having to open up a spellbook and select from pages, etc. Anywho, the point is, you can have any manner of blooming menu, so that, when I point to a button for a specific category of spell (for magic, usually a school of magic, such as "Illusion" or "Evocation"), you could have all my known spells within that category fan out around it. But, they go away as soon as I move the cursor out of that little region. I just see so many games (ESPECIALLY CONSOLE GAMES: Come on, people... "Oh no, we can only give you 4 hotbuttons, 'cause the D-pad only has 4 directions!" OR, you could give us 4 different hold-to-toggle menus, each with 8 different directional selections, for a total of 32 hotbuttons. *facepalm*) just use static lists or individual windows, or just plain hotbars, when things could bloom. You get quick access to abilities and buttons when you need them, and they're all out of your way when you don't (when you deselect or point elsewhere or select an ability). So, yeah... I urge you to consider the bloom. And no, that's not a pitch for Torment.

I will say that the icons within the interface might benefit from a little extra contrast (be it hue, "depth," value, etc.). Especially the ones in the center. As far as intuitive readability goes, they're a little "Wait, what is that? Oh, oh okay. That's options."-y. I do like the overall style, though. The detail and texturing feels very nostalgic, and doesn't distract from the rest of the game screen. I just fear that the icons and buttons might not be as clear as they could be when you've got your cursor rapidly scurrying about the UI during some real-time tense game moments. 8P I realize it's not the finished product. Just trying to provide some constructive feedback. Also, this is a bit more of an explorative suggestion than a constructive feedback, but I wonder if there isn't a more intuitive read for things like Health and Mana/Stamina for each character than small bars on the portraits. Maybe something that goes all the way around the portrait? There could still be individual bars beside them, for more precise reads, but it might be nice to be able to peripherally glance and see who's dying and who isn't. Maybe (of the two bars shown for each in the mockup) one bar could frame the portrait on one side, and the other could frame it on the other side, so that they sort of meet up in the middle at the top and bottom? I think they'd be a lot more immediately readable if they weren't so thin, and so close together. Also, perhaps the tops and bottoms could taper to a larger width, with the 50% point being the thinnest on the "bar." That way, it would be easier to see when people were at quite-safe levels of health/resource and when they were at quite-unsafe levels. OR, just have the bar be decently readable, and maybe have a frame around that change color and/or otherwise visually indicate overall status (full health, less than 2 thirds, less than 1 third, etc.). I know that's pretty specific. But, just for whatever it's worth, 8P

Simply put, Assassin's Creed 3's homestead was flawed because it had absolutely no effect on the rest of the game. On top of that, it didn't really even have any effect on itself, other than progression for the sake of progression. "Yay, you got more stuff, that lets you get more stuff, that doesn't do anything! 8D" There's a large difference between "not necessary" and "literally doesn't have any bearing on anything in the game," and they didn't see that, I don't think.

Maybe they could begin loudly and clearly (each time the chanter starts a new phrase) and fade into a sort of trance-like, subdued melody? For lack of a better term. Not like a song, but almost like someone maintaining a pitch when speaking some words over and over, instead of simply speaking them as if speaking them. A little like the Dwarves in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey when they were recanting the tale of of their home's fall. I know that was more a song, but... the effect of their voices sort of merging and becoming sustained and resonating. But, they could become a bit more subdued and blend into the "background" more, so as not to overpower everything else that's going on, or become too powerful in their repetition/cycle. *shrug*

One thought I had regarding inventory management is, What if items were divided into two categories: 1) Items that effectively take up space, and 2) Items that effectively do not take up space? What I mean is, it seems a bit strange that, if you have a standard grid-style inventory with 16 slots (4x4 square), you can have 1 pebble, 1 herb leaf, 1 string, etc. (until you have 16 individual items) and your inventory is "full" as far as trying to put something else in there goes, when, really, all that, together should take up a ludicrously small amount of space. Yet, you can have 99 strings, and they only take up 1/16th the effective space of 16 individual items the same size as strings. So, what if strings and small gemstones and herbs didn't actually take up space slots and were merely limited by quantity (as, obviously, you couldn't carry 7,000 strings... eventually, it's just not feasible to carry any more), and things beyond a given size (starting with, perhaps, about the size of a hand/palm, like a grenade or orb or bread roll) actually took up inventory space slots? Just a thought.

I chose to use SELECTIVE CAPS, for effect, u_u... My feedback consists mainly of "WOOOOOOH!," with bits of "I genuinely admire all the work everyone's putting into this" and "Where exactly will we see these scripted events (world-map travel, like random encounters?)? Because I ADORE THEM!" thrown in. Also, I like the way you deliver updates. Just... for what it's worth. So, keep that up, too.

^ Yeah, this thread got a little ridiculous with stubbornness, so I was actually kind of playing devil's advocate there, with a "If we can't have convenient aesthetic visual distinction between player-controlled characters in armors because of how it will affect realism, then there's no point in allowing anything that breaks from realism in the slightest, and look where that gets us." I'm very much in support of the minor distinctions between male and female characters, and the reasoning behind it, as well as the small exaggerations on weapons that don't read well from the isometric camera when proportioned 100% realistically (hammers, rapiers, etc.). I'm actually attempting to slowly noob my way into video game art/design.

Significant details, FTW! *Approves violently* ... "I hope they can see this, because I'm doing it as hard as I can."

I believe the intent behind this topic is that failure, rather than being "You don't get anything good/nothing really happens," it is more that different consequences result from it that actually affect the future of the plot/story/gameplay. All too often, it's "save timmy and everyone cares and things happen because of it, etc, or fail to save timmy, and none of that stuff happens, and that's the end of it." It's like the whole world is solely designed for you to not "fail" given situations. Timmy was kidnapped by Bandits? Well, there's no teaming up with the Bandits for the ransom money. If you don't save Timmy from them and do the "good" thing, you simply fail. That's a negative thing, gameplay-wise. You literally get less-than-nothing out of it.

You will also find that in combat, there are times when you're not wearing a helmet, and/or your hair is dangling 2 feet out of your helmet, and/or you dodge/deflect something and are in the process of recovering, and your opponent has the opportunity to grab the free rope hanging from the back of your head as you are powerless to do anything but try to recover from a narrowly-deflected attack. It's not as if I was suggesting that, when facing an opponent, you're simply going to reach for their hair while you're both just standing there at the ready, or that your entire fighting style is going to be "go for the hair." Statistically, you get 1000 long-haired people to fight 1000 opponents, and some people's hair is going to get grabbed and their throats are going to get slit. Many military cultures mandated very short hair, because, why risk such a thing? There's no opportunity EVER for your hair to be grabbed if you've got half-inch-or-shorter hair. There's simply nothing to grab. It's quite simple, really.

@Micamo: I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the shared pack isn't accessible during combat. So, it's basically as you say. You don't have to hand the Axe of Axeness to your Warrior, THEN have him equip it, if you're just doling out loot. It's just in the "Here's stuff we have, and no one's gonna swat your hand if you take it from the area" area (Shared Pack). I believe they said that potions and other active-use items will reside within the "Equipment" area, that is, directly carried and/or ready-to-use directly by a specific character. So, yeah, methinks it is as you wish it to be.

No worries. I wasn't certain I didn't miss an officially-announced change to that system. 8P And I agree on the flexibility thing. Although, I'm really curious as to exactly how it will "flex," since it's shared. *Makes a Snackrifice to Team Obsidian and hopes for some nice new tidbits.*

True that. Now I'm wondering if there couldn't be some "snapshot" feature, to simply take a picture of your model's head/shoulders at a given angle/pose (using the higher-quality paper doll model), then simply apply some Photoshop "make this kinda look like a painting" filter to it or something. I mean, I know that's pretty ultra-simple in Photoshop, and the sheer snapshot-creation thing has been in plenty of games, but I wonder how hard it would be to get just the filter migrated over from a software like Photoshop and have it affect your in-game snapshot. Boom. Unique in-game portraits directly from your character model. If only...

Not when the whole point of the argument at hand deals with people's reasoning capabilities and not their reasoning inclinations. The difference being that, to be come inclined to suppress reasoning urges, one must first be affected over time to do so. Thus, a world in which EVERYONE always gets affected to strongly abandon reason is not very feasible. Plus, there are instances of people who are beaten their whole lives into thinking one way, and STILL hold true to the opposite, and fight back their entire lives. Who beat them into resisting being beaten into abandoning reason? If there were never any instances of people who essentially changed their minds about something that was beaten into them later on in life, then you'd be right. The distinction would be irrelevant. But it isn't, since kids who are given assault rifles at age 6 and told to kill their whole lives can potentially grow up to lead a rebellion against the people who brought them up that way, in an effort to see to it that no kid should ever have to do that. They don't all just go "Oh well, I guess this is good." That's my point regarding this. And, as interesting as it is (really and truly), we should probably save it for another thread, or PMs or something, as it's still a bit off-topic.

I've always thought it would be nice if, instead of simply tossing a stack of daggers into a backpack, you actually had to strap them neatly onto your person or pack. You know, belt loops, sheathes, etc. Well, not that you HAD to. But, it just seemed silly to me that there's no method of carrying weapons like that, and that axes and swords and stuff are just lugged around in a canvas sack, yet somehow people aren't getting poked by their edges and the bag isn't ripping or anything.

We could bump it up to Trinary. But then, Yoda would say "There is no try-nary... only do-nary." So, according to him we'd be back down to mo-nary. 8(

One thing I noticed in the newest Shadowrun Returns (another isometric game) update is that they've opted to make a plethora of different, individual character portraits to choose from, THEN went on to make variants of each of these. I just thought this was an excellent idea, and I implore Obsidian to consider this if they haven't/aren't already. Basically, instead of seeing that one portrait and going "Aw, man! That face is AWESOME! But, if he JUST didn't have the hood and arcane tattoos! I'm a Warrior, not a Mage!", you'll see that same face with 3-or-4 different variations. Maybe one has a helm on, or a topknot, or scars/piercings, etc. While it IS more work for the art team, it's less work than entirely new portraits, as you only have to create the foundation portrait once, then go from there in a few different directions. Anywho, this was basically just a suggestion to Team Obsidian, but I'm never against hearing others' thoughts on the matter.

These are factors that do not determine, but rather affect. My whole point is, we naturally want to reason, even when we don't know we're reasoning. You tell a 2-year-old not to touch a hot stove, he wants to know why, first-hand. Chances are, when you're not looking (or when you are), he's going to touch the stove, to find out what happens. Once he burns his hand, he can now say "Man, I should probably be careful around things that can burn me like that, because I don't want to be burned." No one taught that child to test hot stoves rather than listen to people and take their word for things. The human brain did that, all on its own. We have an instinct toward logical deduction. And McManusaur is right. We are all pretty far off-topic, heh. But, the way this actually ties into the original post is that, I don't think you can make an entire world with a COMPLETELY different basis for morality if it doesn't somehow fit in with logic, and have anyone relate to it or not think it preposterous. Obviously, as with reality, you can have plenty of groups with all manner of moral beliefs and perspectives, but I'm not sure you can JUST have the more extreme/"unique" ones and not have the generally-accepted ones. There's a reason why oodles of different religions across the globe hold to similar handfuls of basic ideals (the golden rule, etc). It's not as if they all, coincidentally, pulled such ideas out of their arses, and there's no such thing as morality. Just because we don't have a 100% accurate, absolute code of provable morality does not mean it's all just subjective mumbo jumbo or anything. That's what I'm getting at.

Unless I missed something, the Stash is always available to put things into. It's just that things can only be taken out of it at campsites/towns, etc. The Shared Pack is the area where not-immediately-equipped items reside that can be equipped and/or used and/or shuffled about/dropped/etc. without having to travel back out of a dungeon/"dangerous" region to do so. This is what has confused me regarding your post. You can travel into a dungeon with a FULL shared Pack and still escape with plenty of loot at the end of the foray. It's just that, if you find a Sword of Awesome halfway through the dungeon, the only options are "put it in the Stash where I can't access it" or "leave it lying about upon the ground." Whereas, if you had Pack space, you could actually equip the Sword of Awesome now (AND keep your current weapon). Well, actually, I suppose you could always toss your immediately-equipped weapon into the Stash, then pick up and directly equip the Sword of Awesome. *shrug* Not sure if that's true or not.

I'd say that suppression of expression of doubt is logical, not the suppression of doubt, all-together. I think when people KNEW their brother was innocent, and the Inquisition came in and kidnapped him, then brutally interrogated him and killed him, they didn't just say "Well, it's dangerous to say anything against the Inquisition, so I now simply choose to believe that they're good and just, and that my brother was obviously a heinous devil-worshipper." They said "Hmm, well, that's pretty terrible, and I hate the Inquisition, but I better pretend I like them and not make a ruckus, until I can do something about it without instantly being killed." You see, logic just tells you that they're hypocrites. It doesn't dictate the ability to do anything about that. Logic merely separates the possible from the impossible. It doesn't convey the absolute way of the world. Anywho, things like the Spanish Inquisition USED the label "morality" do further their own goals. To get from what they said/did back to actual morality, you have to head towards logic/reason. In other words, nothing is good or bad "just because." It's good or bad for a reason. That's why you can't even begin to deduce whether or not killing is bad until you know the specific circumstances surrounding the kill.

Finally, my life is COMPLETE! *evil fist-form gesture* I was just making a point. Somewhat sarcastically so. I don't actually believe no one should have long hair. So, I don't actually think you're wrong. I think we're both right. The point being that following absolute "this is totally what would've happened" doesn't lead down a very pleasant road. People expecting to be in melee combat a lot would not have long hair that is easily grabbable by an opponent (allowing them to snap your neck, and/or take you off balance and/or negatively direct your field of view and/or slit your throat). This is why the viking trope of having long, death-metal hair and wearing horned helmets is so inaccurate. They didn't actually do that, because it would've been silly. Doesn't mean the occasional viking probably didn't go "Hah! I'm gonna wear an easily grabbable helmet, because I'm THAT confident in my combat prowess, and I feel like it!" He probably did. Which brings me to the point that, it can be reasonably assumed that our party, if we so choose minorly "unrealistic" embellishments and variances in equipment, is assembled out of such people. I wasn't even advocating actual-boob plate from the get-go in this whole thread, but, hell, put it in the game, and allow a greater chance of critical hit against it. It's not as if the armor rating, itself, is just going to suck because they're ALWAYS going to hit you where the armor's weakest. Horned helmet? Make grapple checks/attacks against that person easier. Awesome possum. But, don't tell me it's so preposterous that it shouldn't even be allowed into the game. Basically, I opt for "they wouldn't actually have that" long hair and varied hairstyles over a game full of crew-cuts and skinheads, any day. They also wouldn't be able to see behind themselves, from a fixed point 40 feet in the air. Yet we roll with that just fine.

I played it for about 2 hours at a friend's house, back when it was new. I remember it being pretty functionally awesome.