Lephys

If you haven't ever played Chrono Trigger (SNES), that has some awesomely brilliant music. There's also a collection of orchestral-style remixes of the whole game's music called the Chrono Symphonic (I think it can be found at ocremix.org). Like I said, if you haven't heard it, and you're curious, or ever want some additional game music inspiration, definitely check it out, ^_^

I'm pretty sure at least one of the devs has specifically stated that they're planning on making the P:E AI smart enough to follow you through an unbarred door. BUT, I like where your idea is going. It led me to another, piggy-back idea. What if Rogues can set up traps WITHOUT arming them (so you could rig up a door that you think you MIGHT have to retreat through)? Then, the party could fall back through the specified doorway, with the Rogue arming the trap as everyone else hurdles through and closes the door (or maybe the arming isn't actually complete until after the door is closed, depending on how the trap works *shrug*). Anywho, now, it's not that the door is preventing them from getting to you. It's that when they try to simply open the door (or force it open, etc.), boom goes the trap. Maybe it's an acid trap, or maybe it's a concussive trap? Who knows... but that would buy you some time to focus on recovering and/or preparing to re-engage the foes. AND, it would make traps a lot more useful than "OMG OMG, quick, try to set up a trap now that they're chasing us and are about 20 feet away! Maybe they won't see you setting it up, and they'll just run into it anyway, even though you just finished setting it up and turned to run a mere 5 inches from the nearest foe!"

^ I think it might need more beyond that (like the individual NPC reactive statuses, for example), mayyyyybe... But it's definitely a good system facet, even on its own.

Outlandish contexts? It's called a simile. I made a simple comparison. A webpage is something you don't generally get updates on, aside from "we're still working on it" or "it's finished." A meal works the same way. You're either waiting on your meal to be finished, or it's finished and you're no longer waiting on it. You don't say "I know it's only been 5 minutes, but NO ONE CAME AND TOLD ME IF THEY FLIPPED MY STEAK YET! *tears out own hair*". Just like you don't typically say "Why hasn't anyone posted a youtube video of the portions of the backer site that ARE done, yet?" You just wait some more, because you want a site, not a couple of page-format boxes and some link images. Seriously... in what way am I being outlandish or unreasonable? o_o

Errrrmahgherrrrrrrrd!!! Fake Map Quest!!! I don't know how to do justice to the little movie clip that played in my head when I thought up the idea I have! "I'm telling you, there's supposed to be a road here! It shows it leading north, to a village!" *Player checks minimap... minimap shows northerly road here, but there isn't one in the environment.* "Well, let's just head north. Maybe it's an older map, and the road's not used much anymore?" Three hours later... "Okay, now I have NO idea where we are..." "Let's just head back to town, and get a different map." "Yeah, except, I don't even know where TOWN IS, now! It would take us all night to retrace our steps, and this map obviously isn't going to show us an accurate path or any landmarks... I KNEW there was something off about that merchant!" Also, maybe it leads you into an ambush. AND/OR, maybe the map is enchanted, and actually changes, little by little, while you're not looking at it, in an effort to get you lost or lead you into said ambush (obviously enchanted by the person who set up the ambush... OR SENTIENT MAP! O_O). AND/OR it leads you into an area that is enchanted and changes (the good old "You can't leave this maze unless you take the correct pattern of turns" bit is a good cliche example of this type of enchantment). Also... YES! I don't want to see "Well, you can fight 'unarmed style,' if you want, but you'll literally just be fighting while not armed. We'll even make an entire feat/specialization tree dedicated to unarmed combat, and maybe give you like 2 different unarmed-type weapons throughout the entire game, just to maintain the illusion that it's a viable fighting-style choice in the game, 8D!" *coughSkyrimcough*. But, also, I'd like to see AT LEAST two different overall types of unarmed combat: 1) Unarmed standard Warrior type ("brawler," for lack of a better word) and 2) Martial Arts Monk type. It's just very commonly "Well, you're not a Monk, so you can basically make rudimentary punches and kicks here and there if you really feel like it," OR "unarmed basically is just the exact same thing as armed, only at about 15% damage."

Pics or it didn't happen. The ability to visually discern between characters is important (you admit that yourself), and armor that covers 90% of the character and is shaped exactly the same always negatively impacts the ability to do so. Put 3 characters in professional sports mascot suits and you'll have the same (albeit much more obvious) result. "Which giant humanoid eagle is my male warrior, and which is my female Paladin?!" Also, you adamantly point out that inter-character armor variance is unnecessary, while agreeing that visual character distinction, even in form-covering-armor, is entirely important, then proposing equally un"necessary" methods of maintaining this distinction (such as "everyone always wears different colored/shaped/symbol'd tabards," or "everyone always has different embellishments on their armor!" Do you truly not see the folly in suggesting that players always wear unique tabards and/or have their names floating above their heads, rather than simply fitting rigid armors to physiques, in the name of maintaining realism/immersion? I took all that time to make it clear, contextually, that I was commenting on technical, graphical concerns/factors, and you go and take it out of context. Why do I bother... Clearly, it is exaggerated differences. So, thanks for... agreeing with me, on this tidbit? Missed point: the small character models aren't even going to very effectively convey the perfectly realistic subtle differences between armors on different characters. Even the physique difference between a lithe male Elf and a beefy male Elf is going to need to be exaggerated, because "His biceps are 5 inches bigger around than that other guy's" isn't going to show up worth a crap when scaled down to such a tiny character on-screen. So, I'm glad you agree that the visual exaggerations I speak of are, in fact, both exaggerations as well as differences. o_o Heh... So you're gonna respond to my "this allows for intuitive character distinguishment" argument with "I don't mind a lesser level of inherent intuitiveness, so I don't see why anyone else should"? Maybe we shouldn't have different font size options, if you can clearly read 10pt dialogue font. Why on earth should anyone want to visually recognize their characters, but not want otherwise-arbitrarily multi-colored armor, tabards, and floating character names on-screen? For sooth! I dunno. Why is an exclamation point above a person-with-a-dilemma's head intrusive, and the spell quickslots along the bottom of the screen isn't? Good question. Because we're going to have males and females. Unless, of course, they use the same character models for both, which I'm pretty sure the old IE games didn't do. *shrug* Nice allegation, but it wasn't backpedaling, AND I didn't say that it was sarcasm but not an argument. It was both. What it wasn't was a direct representation of the words out of your mouth (aka your "argument"), but instead a parallel along your track of reasoning. To clarify, your reasoning was that armor color, armor decorations, and floating names (among other things) should handle visual character distinction just fine, ALONGSIDE the reasoning that there's absolutely no reason not to maintain realism in the appearance of equipment. Therefore, sarcastically suggesting that making sure armor ALWAYS bore some external, optional difference was a good idea in the interest of making sure two different sets of plate armor can always appear identical for the sake of realism was appropriate to your argument and reasoning. All I did was point out a collision between your two seemingly coexistent lines of reasoning. I'll be as blunt as I can here: Your dislike for sarcasm does not make it a strawman argument, and I have no interest in convincing you to stop disliking something. See? Not a strawman argument. Just sarcasm. Although, I'm not sure what it's supposed to emphasize, other than your lack of reading comprehension (as I've specifically advocated subtlety countless times so far, and your sarcasm highlights only the folly of a complete lack of it), or maybe your pure frustration at this point with me, personally, simply because you don't like the fact that I'm trying to be reasonable when you've already decided you're not even going to consider my words before trying to figure out how to slice them up and make it sound like I haven't had a relevant point or ounce of logic since 1989. For what it's worth, I'm sorry that this discussion is so frustrating to you, and I don't think it's ridiculous to want armor designs to be entirely true to history. What I do find ridiculous is the tenacity with which you fight to act as though the subtle difference between a male and female armor set (which the devs have already posted concepts for) is entirely and utterly nonsensical and purposeless, and the only possible way to not be a bunch of crazies is to go with your stance on the matter (perfectly realistic armor that we won't even know is perfectly realistic because of tiny character proportions and detail degradation). How many representations in the game, I wonder, do you welcome the mild abstraction of, in the interest of increased functionality or decreased troublesomeness? And yet you act like the sheer idea of ever-so-slight abstraction (again, see Obsidian character miniature concepts) here is the most preposterous thing you've ever heard of? I've said it countless times on these forums, and I'll say it again: "My preference is different from yours" is far different from "You, sir, are incapable of intelligent reasoning because I don't prefer your suggestion/stance."

Hahaha! Racial Bonus -- +5 to the Camouflage Self As Large Inanimate Object skill. "A-HAH! I made it safely into the forest! Those foolish Aumaua will NEVER find me in here! Teeheehee! Wait a minute... that tree has abs... o_o... Oh dear..."

I was just thinking about a "reveal interactable objects" button. But, even then, I'd honestly like it to be done on a character sight-radius basis. What I mean is, if you walk into a big, dark warehouse, and your characters can only see about 10 feet around them, then pressing a key should not highlight/reveal objects 40 feet away, on the edge of the screen. There's no reason for anyone to simultaneously want to "explore" everything AND need to not set foot in any corner of a room that they don't absolutely need to. Another example is the "I can see through the small bars of this door into about 25% of this room, and now I instantly know where all small interactable containers are in every square inch of the room" phenomenon. 8P. Your characters don't need to be within hugging distance of a chest or ladder to spot it, but they also shouldn't be able to say "Hey, there's a small lever in the wall 100 feet down that corridor."

Well, the point (or at least mine... I mean, what I'm thinking on the matter) is that you have not just more numerous data points on the same +/- scale, but actually multiple scales. The tricky part is hammering those out the right way; picking exactly what they'll be. Really, these things are represented in plenty of games. Just... very simplistically. You've got your like/hate scale, and then you've got all these other things handled not by a scale, but by individual skill/dialogue checks and/or quest triggers. For example, you helped that orphanage? *Trigger flip* NPC Bob now trusts/respects you with his firstborn child. There is no scale for "Okay, you seem to be looking out for those in need, but how do I know you're not just trying to get people to like you? I mean, how well do I really know you?" that's affected by different amounts or types of deeds, there. Then, you've got the "Do this thing for me, and we'll be best friends for life" quest. Again, a binary switch. You don't allow for "Okay, I'm afraid of what you might be capable of, because I heard this rumor about you, but, as far as I'm concerned, you're still good people, because of what else I know about you." Another thing to consider is this: What if certain factors aren't always created by your direct relationship with a given NPC, but instead are basically statuses (statii?) of NPCs? As in, a person can be highly frustrated with a situation (and frustration can even be compounded by your dialogue choices/actions) without them actually developing a permanent dislike for you based on that. But, a super frustrated person isn't going to react to things like a calm person would. A frustrated person might say "I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THAT!", whilst a calm person might say "Okay, I'll tell you what I know real quick," or even agree to deals that they otherwise wouldn't have, etc. Similarly, someone can be frightened or panicked without being directly frightened of you, in general. And, things you do or say might cause them to become quite frightened or panicked without permanently attributing fright and panic to your presence, but they'll still react differently. *shrug* It still feels very difficult to really come up with some kind of rough draft of the skeleton of a whole, working system like this. But, I think it's worth exploring. Basically, there need to be more varied effects on the status and reactivity of NPCs (and groups of NPCs) -- for the purposes of creating more dynamic situations and outcomes -- rather than simply a greater number of effects on the same narrow range of effects (like/hate/neutral) on NPC demeanor. What we've got is kind of like a weapon system in which you sharpen/improve your sword enough and it becomes an axe. Maybe you sharpen it more and it becomes a polearm. Each weapon has completely separate sets of properties, so it shouldn't be limited to a certain quality range on a single scale. An axe should have its own scale, a sword its own, and a polearm its own.

Well, with the ladder example, I don't really see a downside to it at least highlighting (in some fashion) when you mouse-over. I mean, if your character can't detect it, then it wouldn't do so (and no amount of player squinting would result in finding it). And, if your character CAN readily detect it (especially something like a ladder), then all it's going to do is compensate for any cause for the player to lose track of or visually miss that ladder or object. As for highlighting things before you even mouse-over (loot glitter, etc.), I'm not so sure about that (unless, maybe only when it's obstructed by a foreground object, and your character has already detected it?). I think saying "Well, I didn't find that chest in the middle of the room, easily visible, because it wasn't already sparkling, and I was too lazy to actually look about for a few seconds and think 'maybe I can open this chest that's here?'" is bordering on sheer laziness. I mean, you're controlling your characters, so you just click-running them through a room unless they automatically sparkle-mark interactable objects is just one step away from "They should just auto-loot things and skip the 'Notify The Player' step." You know, like the first Mass Effect, in which you finished combat, then were presented with a "Here's all the stuff you automatically found on the bodies in an instant!" window. Is it faster and easier? Yes. Does it kinda feel like the loot is actually just magically being rewarded to you from the heavens and is in no way connected specifically to the creatures you've just slain? Kind of... I think that, so long as the player controls the characters, exploration has to fall partially on the player's shoulders (err... fingers?).

Aumaua could TOTALLY be Rogues, . In Guild Wars 2, I made a Charr (huge cat/bull/thing person) Thief. He was awesome. They're like the biggest, bulkiest characters you can make. Of course, they are a bit cat-like, so... *shrug*

I'll save Helm the trouble: "Man, why did he use SO many words to say 'Everything!'?"

Yeah... I just can't bring myself to actually give up on my belief in his ability to be reasonable. I'm an optimist.

I think that if your character knows where it is, then you shouldn't have any trouble finding it (highlight away!). What I mean is, if it's a hidden something that your character has used "Search" to uncover or something, or it's the corpse of a thing you slew, your character should know where it is (even if grass and other such graphical objects obscure it from player view). However, if it's a trap switch in the floor, and your character isn't skilled enough to detect it, then no amount of mouse-overing the screen, pixel-by-pixel, should highlight ANYthing. Just my two cents. In the case if your example, if the pentagrams were clearly spottable (had you been one of your characters, standing in that room) and only required the effort of looking about, and you, the player, simply had trouble finding them from your perspective, then I don't see why they shouldn't have been highlighted. Now, as to the best way to highlight (a big yellow outline, a faint glow, sparkles, gamma wash, etc.), that's a whole 'nother (and more technical) issue.

Yeah, that's kinda what I was thinking. I mean, the point of these traits (scars were a good example) wouldn't be to give visual interest to the character model for the player's sake. But, they'd have actual effects on the gameplay. For example, if you chose Scar 1 (across the nose) instead of a different scar, or no scar at all, then, at some point in the game, you might get mistaken for some notorious bandit. "Hey, there are posters around town advertising a reward for an Elf with a scar across his nose. That looks like the guy in the poster! GET HIM!" You know, that sort of thing. Or, maybe some character at some point in the story says "... You remind me of my sister. She had purple eyes, too...", and they trust you and/or open up to you in a way they wouldn't if you hadn't had that specific trait. Of course, it's essentially just an extra layer of reactive triggers for the world, so, like I said, I don't know that it wouldn't simply be overboard (really depends on a lot of development factors and such). If they happen to be looking for more reactivity factors at this point in development, then it might be something to consider. But, if they've got a lot of those hashed out or planned already, then it might just be overboard. The simple fact of the matter is that he dislikes specific aspects of some of the IE games, and you seem to adamantly pretend that one can only either hate something as a whole, or like it. I mean, someone might say "I don't like cats," and maybe it's because they're allergic to cats. If given the choice, they might be given the position of Lead Designer on a team of bio-engineers, to design an allergen-free cat. You would say "How can you design a cat if you HATE cats?!", but the cat they design bears COUNTLESS similarities to existing cats. They simply made what they believe to be a better cat, because they felt like people should be able to enjoy all the good things about cats without having to put up with allergies. So, maybe you could ask Josh what he does and does not like about the Baldur's Gate games, so as to obtain actual useful knowledge about his stance on said games. OR, you know, you could just continue the leaping assumption that he despises entire games. *shrug* It's really your call. I just try to provide decision support. 8P

Nah, it's actually a pretty good example. You just took happenstancical context from my example, and applied it directly to the situation, as if it was the point of my example. You see, the point was that a meal isn't really a thing you get updates on. As is evident by the fact that the earliest problem with a meal in a restaurant you felt was worth mentioning was "if it takes too long." You have no concern with the stage-by-stage progress of your food in a restaurant, so long as the entire recipe is finished in a reasonable amount of time. Much like a backer website. So the comparison was entirely relevant. If you feel that they're taking too long to get the completed backer site to your table, then you can feel free to complain to the manager. However, I have no idea how you're determining how long it should take. *shrug*. But, that's your pre-rogative. Patience IS a virtue, though.

Find the quote, and I'll birth your children. Swing and a miss... I wasn't comparing a stop sign's function to the function of video game graphics. I was comparing the significance of the color of a stop sign as it pertains to the stop sign's functionality to the significance of the aesthetic pleasantry of a graphical armor model in a video game as it pertains to the graphical armor model's functionality. But, thanks for elaborating on how stop signs don't function like video game graphics. Look, with all due respect, I haven't said otherwise. So, if you have no argument with me, there's no point in arguing against my rebuttal to someone else's argument against my stance -- a stance which aligns with your own on the matter. Basically, all I've done is thought about the matter, upon entering the thread, and decided "Hmm, yes, subtle differences in things like breastplate proportions, as opposed to extreme differences as in other games OR no difference at all (which could, potentially be problematic in character discernment, even though it's not the biggest of deals) is probably the way to go. There's value in this." Then, someone kindly posted the concepts that Obsidian's own art team already created of their own accord, before this thread even existed, which displayed exactly that: Subtle differences between a male and female plate armor set, which still adhere SO closely to realistic plate armor proportions and design that it's not even funny. Then, I said "Oooh, yes, like that. That's a good example of how I happen to feel the designs should be." And yet, still, no one can simply acknowledge a reasonable perspective on a simple matter? No form-fitting bosom shapes in the plate? Awesome. I agree. Could both breastplates be identical, as they "would realistically be" (we'll ignore the fact that very few women ever fought in plate, in recorded history, which could be very different from the number of women who've fought in plate in P:E's world's history, which could drastically or hardly-at-all affect the consideration for various fittings of plate armor for women, since no one's gonna take their time with that when 7 out of 9,000,000,000 soldiers were ever women...)? Yes, yes they could. But, that could be a detriment to intuitively beholding one's monitor image and having no trouble whatsoever identifying their very own characters. That isn't my opinion, that's a fact I'm simply observing and mentioning. I don't lay claim to having invented the idea of visual discernment, or how the human eye functions, or how reality provides absolutely no reason whatsoever for there to be any amount of difficulty in figuring out who the hell is where in a game with heavily tactical combat. And pardon me, but I don't think that "Well, you should be forced to add optional decorations or color changes to various character's armors, or you could always just not purchase multiple sets of the same armor from a blacksmith and outfit several members of your party with that armor to avoid the problem" is somehow more reasonable than "Maybe there should be a subtle difference inherent to the form of the armor?", especially when Obsidian has already announced that their handling of armor models for various characters of various physiologies will have the armor "magically" fit itself to that character's physiology. So, I don't see why gender-based physiological differences should be any different from race-based physiological differences. I also understand that they are a development team with a limited budget, and that such a method of handling things easing their work load so that they can finish the rest of the game to the best of their ability is WELL worth the lack of uber realistic blacksmith armor-fitting services, and the existence of 73 different sizes and shapes of breastplate in the game that each only fit specific physiologies (even though that would seriously be cool, in a way, and I totally see the value in it... I simply don't see the value of that, under the circumstances, outweighing the time saved by not-doing that). Thank you for the reasonable reply on this point. Seriously. I understand what you mean, but it seems to me that "I acknowledge that characters need to be distinguishable from one another, but I think all men and women should just have to wear different tabards or decorations at all times, instead of having a simple difference in armor form" is a bit... I dunno, self-defeating? I mean, if they have different helmet designs just because they're different genders, then why not the rest of the armor? Also, I just want to clarify something here. I don't want artificial/forced differences in armor purely as a means of discerning males from females. I just want to maintain the aesthetic difference that already exists between male and female characters, even when they're wearing that armor, by subtly preventing the armor from completely negating it. In other words, you already could tell Suzy from Tom, but now you can't simply because they're both wearing plate... I simply think it's prudent to allow the plate to allow you to still maintain a difference between Suzy and Tom's aesthetic forms, which happens to benefit intuitive recognition/discernment (which only isn't benefitted when the armor negates it). It's not like we're adding physiological differences to the game or something. "I know males and female appear identical, but when they're both wearing plate, I want them to look different!" THAT would, indeed, be ridiculous, and many in this thread are acting almost as if that's what we difference advocates are advocating. That's true, but it didn't misrepresent it, because it didn't represent it at all. It simply pointed out a flaw in the underlying reasoning of his argument, that he may not have noticed. Sarcasm simply seemed a faster way to make it known than to try to break down his argument and point out exactly what it was that was problematic in the reasoning behind it. Example: "Metal isn't dangerous! "Oh, so I guess knives aren't dangerous, u_u..." You can't say "I didn't say anything about knives!", because you said something about the material out of which knives are made. Whether you were aware of it or not, your statement related to knives. If you didn't intend it to, then now's the time to clarify, not to toss the word "strawman" around and act like that person's an idiot for using sarcasm. Like I said, the point of sarcasm is that what you're saying is ridiculous, so as to point out that the basis for the ridiculous statement was problematic. Even if I used sarcasm incorrectly by mistakenly thinking the basis of my ridiculous statement was the same as the basis of the original argument, that STILL wouldn't be a strawman, because I am in no way alleging the specifics of the argument to be something else. I just hate how often that term is tossed around, simply because someone misunderstood or failed to recognize sarcasm, and felt the need to clarify the difference.

I definitely think that the "known for" aspect should be represented in the reputation system, in whatever precise manner. 8P Of course, that would still be a separate factor as it relates to your "How this person or this group regards you at the moment." For example... The Thieves' Guild might regard you with respect if THEY know of things you've acquired without anyone else knowing about them, but might react with disappointment or disinterest if everyone knows about the things you've done ("everyone" being "common people who aren't experts in stealth and therefore shouldn't be aware of your stealthy acts"). OR, The Guild might respect you for being known (by the right people) for stealthily accomplishing things, while a specific member (or just some other individual) might only have respect or admiration for you if NO ONE knows how you acquire the things you acquire or handle the situations you handle because they're so stealthily handled. Or, another individual might even admire you for boasting about your skills/accomplishments, even though the Thieves' Guild might frown upon this (but still appreciate your skill). Things just tend to be more... robust, when there's not just a single "good points -- bad points" scale for everyone's regard for you, even when a variety of different things affect that scale in different ways. You only get 3 different ways to affect it: A positive change, no change, or a negative change. It's just very limiting, especially when dealing with something as extensive as human(oid) reaction/regard. It's the same as how Water or Air spells do different things from fire spells, not absolutely better or worse things than fire spells. Other factor values are needed to determine the inherent value, so there isn't really an up or a down, but, instead, a variety of directions.

You could always sell your un-"opened" (if it's digital) copy to someone else and get your money back, if it ends up looking like something you really don't want to play. It will be most unfortunate if it ends up being so different from what you were expecting that it comes to that. But, at least ultimately your money would not end up "in the toilet," so-to-speak. 8P

I understand perfectly that we won't have aesthetically-represented traits as small as eye shape and such, but it got me all curious... Will we be able to pick notable features like that, such as facial scars or distinctive ear shapes (just a decent little variety, since it's not going to be visually represented anyway) that can be noticed and cause reactions in the world around us? You know, "Hey, you're that elf with purple eyes that everyone's been talking about!", or "I recognized you by your burned left ear." I know it's not necessary, but it would be pretty interesting. Although, I can't, at the moment, think of any functional difference between that and simply "You were recognized, regardless of how your face looks." The only function with things like that I could think of would come from race/ethnicity. Certain people might know one Dwarf from another just from their subtle differences in physiology and such, whereas other people wouldn't know anything beyond the fact that a Dwarf is a Dwarf. *shrug* Like I said, that comment just made me think, "Would there be any value in having customizable features functionally represented in the game, even though they're too small to be visually represented?"

... Because I clearly stated that you don't lose anything. Actual difference vs. no difference is a quantifiable factor within discernibility, which is absolutely an important part of party control within gameplay. How pleasant no armor difference makes you feel is not quantifiable by any kind of standard, and therefore is subjective. For example, the specific color of two things that need to be distinguished from one another is subjective, and nowhere near as important as the resulting contrast of whatever two colors are chosen (distinguishability being objective). You might not like red and yellow, but they would be discernable from one another even to the colorblind (because of the lightness/darkness contrast of the two colors). It is why stop signs are red. You need to have your eye drawn to the stop sign to make sure you stop more than you need to enjoy the color of a stop sign. So, I really don't know what you're arguing here. For realsies. ... Because I definitely said armor should have "massive differences." Also, since you have no control over the perspective (it's an isometric game) or the size and detail level of your character models (they're pretty small, even when zoomed all the way in), your ability to intuitively discern between characters is constrained by the game's parameters. Therefore, it is up to the game to compensate for these factors. It's the same as with a company logo. If it's the size of a building and you can tell what it is, that's awesome. Maybe you can still tell what it is when it's on a T-shirt. When you print it on a pencil, however, you may not be able to tell it from several other logos. For this exact reason, many companies have a different logo specifically for very small instances of the logo. Basically, the smaller things are, the more you have to exaggerate subtle details to keep them recognizable. That's pretty much design 101. And, since the game is suggesting that I'm SUPPOSED to be in full control of my characters, then ideally, I'd intuitively know who's who and just command them with my mind. However, since we're still limited to GUI interaction for commands and controls, I must rely upon an image on a 2D screen to figure out where a character is in the viewable area, then select them with my mouse (or other input device). There is absolutely no reason for this process to ever be infeasible or troublesome. Of course! Let's make sure that people who happen to have a party full of Warriors and want them to all wear nice-quality plate armor have each character have a completely different color of armor, and that their names float mystically above their heads, all in the interest of preserving the immersion and verisimilitude provided by plate armor that is never proportioned any differently for different character body types! GENIUS! So it would seem. If only people would argue fallaciously, then all your counter-arguments would actually be applicable. Darn people! Point, missed. This game's armor designs are amongst the most realistic in the industry, and yet people are actually taken aback, in this thread, that they would stray from pure realism, as if they were the first to do it or weren't doing it to the least extent. It was merely an observation. Do with it as you please (except for suggesting it was calling out a specific argument, please...) Wait, you're going to use sarcasm "logic" on me, while referring to it both by its fancy Latin name AND as a strawman? You do understand that sarcasm doesn't in any way allege the specifics of your stance, right? It simply parallels it with something blatantly absurd, so as to highlight a fault in the reasoning shared by both. I love how internet forums have turned "sarcasm for emphasis" into "strawman." It's kinda like how Alanis Morrisette has everyone thinking that rain on your wedding day is irony. o_o

New class: THE FALCONER!!! *SCREEEEEECH!*

AN OMEN!!!

The 2 most significant points that have been brought up so far seem to be: 1) An individual's opinion of you should be separate from their entire faction's opinion of you. and 2) No amount of + points or - points is ever going to provide a deep reputation system so long as they're all on the exact same scale. People have expressed concerns with the OP's specific terms and layout used, but the idea behind the proposal is what's most important. You can respect someone without liking them. You can fear someone while appreciating them at the same time, a la "I don't really want to talk face-to-face with that guy, but I'd like to help supply his efforts because I like what he's doing." Games are already representing actual interactions and factors that affect people in numerous different ways, and yet they're still sticking to increases and decreases of "reputation" or "faction" points on a single, linear meter. It's pretty much counter-productive. You either end up limiting the options presented to the player to "good, neutral, or bad" (only a piddly three) to match your reputation system, OR you present 3 "good" options that all have the same outcome, 3 neutral options that all have the same outcome, and 3 "bad" options that all have the same outcome. Personally, I'd rather see a game have an NPC say "Oh, it's you! You did that terrible thing! But, you actually did accomplish something with it, so I'm going to react to you differently than I would have had you done that terrible thing on purpose and accomplished nothing with it but your own gain, rather than simply thinking -10points about you either way you went." But, maybe that's just me. *shrug*

Quite true, all of that. The thing is, in a lot of games, it doesn't really say how much time things take. I mean, maybe it does, on a specific quest, or between one story mile-marker and the next (i.e. "Now that you've fled the castle and arrived at Drevenford, it's 1 month later, no matter what all you did in-between"), but it usually just lets you assume, based on the changes and effects upon the rest of the game world, that that bandit outpost in the woods took you, meh... maybe a day or so to clean out? Maybe it took you a week? *shrug*, Either way, unless new quests are available, or developments have been made throughout the rest of the game world, you have no way of knowing. Because, you've got those little abstractions going on everywhere, because of the nature of the player's interaction with a video game. Like the fact that you can generally sleep at an inn to heal up, about 50 times, and yet something that only should've taken a few days to escalate hasn't even changed yet. It's still waiting on you to go trigger it. So, I just think there's a lot of leeway to be had there, before you even get into the "Let's start designing time progression really well throughout this game." Simply making sure its always represented would be a huge start. And I say "always." This is getting a bit off topic, but, while I don't necessarily have anything against a constantly-running clock (things in the game world change and move simply based on your time in the game world, rather than your active progression in the game world), I think the thing that tends to work best is when "doing things" (actually completing quests, or performing any action that actually changes the story/lore/world situation for at least one character) progresses time, appropriately. What I mean is, even if it takes you 17 in-game days of resting and venturing back out to complete that one "go clear out this cave" quest, once you complete the quest, the game world can "unpause" and advance the 2-or-3 days it's supposed to have taken for you to travel to the cave, do what needs doing, then return. Again, that's not the ONLY way to do it, but it tends to work pretty well, as a default idea. BUT, now we're getting into a different discussion, heh, so I'll save that for another thread. All that being said, it is very tricky to make all the elements of your game world work together to represent time well, without causing problems to various systems and mechanics. If it made you understand your own position and perspective better than you already did, then I am glad, ^_^. Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of discussion isn't to change minds, but simply to develop them. And, for what it's worth, it's my knowledge of Obsidian's expressed intentions and stances on things so far, and the fact that they're only going to use actual level-scaling when they "need" to that doesn't have me worried they'll mess the game up. If, say, the development team for the next Elder Scrolls game announced that they were going to implement level-scaling, I might still discuss it at length in a thread like this, but I wouldn't be re-assuring everyone not to worry because it would probably be a good implementation. It's all about the amount of care you take with the implementation. It is my belief that Obsidian will surprise even those who adamantly hate level-scaling with their skillful and wise implementation of it.