Lephys

*Begins peeling away the wax-paper backing to expose the adhesive on the back of the title* Application will commence shortly,

Maybe we'll have armadillos or porcupines, and you can just pelt the enemy with them.

@curry, Didn't they say somewhere that it would actually be decently customizable? I don't think it's supposed to be MMO "literally just put any individual object on the screen in any spot you wish" customizable. But... I could've sworn they said something about that in response to that whole thread wondering whether the UI would be modern or oldschool solid. Something about "we want the option for that oldschool solid UI, but we also want it to be a little more versatile." *shrug* My memory fails me.

Well, it's possible they simply haven't decided on all the finalized color choices yet. Also, Josh mentioned that they aren't doing the raw RGB "wheel" because a large percentage of the colors you can pick from that end up completely de-detailing various types of equipment (plate, chain, etc.). Maybe you like blue, so you click on the sort-of-blue area on the wheel, and boom... your chainmail texture's gone because of that particular blue hue/saturation/value. Maybe there are only a handful of shades of blue that actually don't just make you look like a big smudge.

I think the initial plan to have them in and allow the Wizard to remotely cast spells through them was pretty good. You could even have them increase their numbers of spells you could cast through them per day/per encounter as the Wizard levels up. That, and I believe they were supposed to be able to bestow sort of "aura" effects to nearby allies, and/or debuff effects to nearby enemies. Also good. With both of those purposes, you don't really need them to dish out direct damage, so it's no worry if they're just small, probably-not-going-to-hurt-things-much creatures. Heck, they could even be more "ethereal" type creatures, in the world of PoE, like soul fragment wisps or something. Thus, it would even make sense that they don't really physically strike stuff. And if they "died" in combat, they would merely dissipate, and be unable to reform for a decent while (maybe 15 seconds, maybe 'til the end of combat? *shrug*). That's plenty of penalty, without any kind of health hit like in D&D rules. They're very useful, so that if you let them dissipate in combat, you have to do without their usefulness. I also always liked how D&D familiars could help you in a variety of ways in non-combat situations, so that could be a factor, too. Then, have them be optional for a Wizard; you either take a familiar at Lvl 1, at the cost of something else (spell slots, cast time, several things maybe? who knows), or you do without them and are more capable in other respects. I can see it being questionable whether or not the micromanagement of them would be feasible. But, other than that, I think it could work well. Now, with actual living animals, it makes a bit less sense, because they wouldn't just dissipate if they got smashed. So, I can see getting the lore to work being a task, but mechanically, it still wouldn't be too hard to make them work.

We don't know if that'll make it into the final build, though. Might be weeded out in the beta. Also, Josh mentioned how the AI calculates the circumstances, and narrows things down to a set of possible actions, but it still somewhat randomly chooses from that list. So, maybe that time the thing ignored the closer person, but, in a different instance of that fight, it might change targets to the closer target. *shrug*

Well, Josh confirmed that Wizard familiars, specifically, were removed. So, whatever kind of things we can summon and/or have as animal companions (Ranger), we won't have any actual familiars. Sadly...

Yeah, I dunno... I mean, if "Only a fool would attack a weaker foe, *hair toss, caviar eat*" is supposed to just be a taunt/provocation, it seems like something else would work a lot better. Such as... "You fight pretty well against an unarmed man" or something. Or maybe an intimidation? "Hmm *thumbs edge of blade*... I might break my record for limbs severed today. *smirk*" *shrug*. It's almost like he's using Might... to try to convince the person that fighting a weakling is beneath him?

Captain America just rolled for ambidexterity.

It does seem a bit odd, and it is nice to be able to just attempt on anyone. However, with PoE's "checks outside of combat aren't rolls" system, it'd be a little weird. "Try this guy... nope, I failed 'cause my Dex isn't high enough." OR, "I have max Dex... I pick EVERYONE'S pockets successfully, ^_^". Within the given system, it would just amount to frivolous looting. *shrug*

True. They're a little weirdly worded. They remind me of when games sort of present you with dialogue options that are summaries of what it is you're supposed to be saying. You know, the line you click says "I don't want to risk the villagers." Then, your character actually says "No, that would put too many villagers in harm's way. I don't want to do that unless there's no other way." Etc. I'm not saying they ARE, just... that's sort of how they're worded. 'Cause the "only a fool" one seems to be trying to be smart or something. It kinda sounds like a philosophical barbarian or something. The Intellect one really sounds abbreviated, though. If that's what it means. I haven't seen the video yet, so I don't have much context to go on. But, if it means "think about this, it's not worth your life," then it seems like it should be less "*shrug*, then you're probably gonna die, too." Just seems like someone in a hostage situation would take that as a threat. Maybe a question would work better? "Hold on, now. How do you see this playing out if you kill him?" Something like that? *shrug* At the very least, they appear to be a bit strangely worded. Not crazily weird. Just a little. But, again, I don't have much context. They could make perfect sense in full context. Maybe there're different wordings based on your character personality/stat choices? Maybe that's partially placeholder dialogue? *shrug*. There could be any number of factors there.

Either that or his mustache was a Rogue.

That really is kind of weird, and that was the worst game, heh. I mean, it was fun in its time, but it felt the least "Legend of Zelda." *shrug* Who knows. But, yeah, if they are supposed to be "in love" or whatever (I just mean, if that's actually the intent by the creator of the characters and such, 'cause I really have no idea), I still prefer that, in the context of those games, they don't even kiss and whatnot. That's the kind of romance I'd like to see a lot more in place of Bioware's typical stuff, for example. Literally just the human aspect of romance. Not "here's a whole string of content dedicated solely to relationship-building in a vaccuum with any given character." As Darji said, it should really revolve around the plot, and not around how many times you click the "give gifts" button and say pleasant things. The story/events should affect character's feelings, and character's feelings should affect the story. I mentioned before, what if your character likes someone with some kind of title or obligation, and they end up being more devoted to you than to their responsibility? That could affect entire faction decisions, etc. Look at A Song of Ice and Fire. Rob Stark chooses love over his obligation to the Freys, and look how that turns out. Not that it has to turn out like that, I'm just saying... that was a pretty significant set of consequences from a simple romance.

Except a tunic. And a cap, I suppose. Maybe a rupee or two. (Dangit... I hate it when I mean to edit a reply into my super-recent post, then accidentally just post it as a separate one.)

Just FYI (I really didn't know this, and was curious, so this isn't an "IN YOUR FACE!" or anything): "Another incarnation appears in the sequel, Zelda II: The Adventure of Link. This Zelda has been put into an eternal slumber until Link breaks the curse. According to the in-game legend, the elder Zelda has been under a curse so long that it is in her honour that the Hylian royal family maintains a tradition of naming all its princesses after her. This is the first game showing a relationship between the two, as they can be seen kissing at the end of the game." (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Zelda) I never did beat that game. I got to the final temple, then my cousin forgot to hold RESET when powering off the NES, so it wiped my save data (it was one of THOSE games). I never bothered to replay through the game, heh. But, yeah, I honestly didn't know off the top of my head if any of the games ever actually portrayed the idea that Link and Zelda were romantically involved. I just always got the feeling they were supposed to pretty much be soulmates, seeing as how they're always quite entwined in destiny and all that jazz. *shrug*

Well, it seems like the first one is basically saying "What's the matter... can't handle anything but a weakling?", and sort of flexing your "muscles." That's why it's a Might check. If you're too puny, it wouldn't work. It's pretty much a taunt, though. While the second seems to be appealing to reason. You know, "If you really think about it, killing him might not be the best idea." Although, the way that's worded, it COULD also just be a threat. So, I don't think you're weird. It almost sounds like "Kill him and see how long you live..." BUT, it could also be "Just think about it... we don't really have a reason to kill you yet, but if you kill him, we suddenly do. What's more important? His death, or your life?" *shrug* EDIT: I failed to mention that the "threat" is worded awfully intellectually. You could almost start it with "Confucius Say," . So, yeah, that reinforces the "you're not weird for thinking that."

I don't think you were, for what it's worth. It was just a quick little comment, and it's not like there was no purpose for it. It was just a weird word-meaning situation. 8P I have to wait 8 more hours to watch the video, heh. I hope the beta will have all that in, though. If it doesn't, it's probably that it just won't start with quite everything "unlockeed," if they're still trying to semi-finalize some of it to be ready for testing. They don't want to test stuff they know is incomplete/lacking. That'll just lead to a bunch of moot feedback. "WIZARD ONLY HAS TWO SPELLS!" Yeah, we KNOW, the Wizard's incomplete right now! Heh... But, yeah, since they want to tweak talents and all that, I'm pretty sure that, at the very least, the beta will have all the classes in it as soon as they're ready.

I share your sentiments about pickpocketing being practically useless. However, the knowledge we have of it being vaguely "rare" and not just a usable-whereever-you-will skill does not necessarily confirm that it will be useless. It might be very useful. Just less sandboxy, perhaps. We'll have to see, I guess.

The number of initial points for allocation during character creation could very well be a part of what they're waiting to tweak with beta feedback. No worries, Namutree. Life is life, and it's nice to know why someone in the community suddenly vanishes, even if it's not nice why they're having to do so. So, we're glad you're back sooner than expected, and apologies not necessary. Hope things are all right.

I get what you're saying, because it could mean two different things. He could be calling what existed at E3 "footage." But, yeah, it was a demo. However, anyone but the people who actually played that and merely saw video feed of it afterward (including now) is seeing "footage" OF that playtime. I think he just meant "the stuff at E3, which is now footage." Not suggesting it was footage at the time.

See, an excellent point. They shouldn't really ask you that. If it just so happens that that character is GOING to fall in love with yours, because of your choices and actions/race/what-have-you, then they should just DO it. MAYbe they'd express it somehow, to you. Just the fact that they'll take a throwing axe for you or something. Devotion, I suppose. But, it's pretty weird when it's all "this character is totally prompting you for romance: Abort, retry, fail?" I would expect some characters to want to know that from you, over others who'd simply express it and be done with it. But, that should happen AFTER you've actually given them the impression that there's some kind of devotion from you. And it shouldn't be at the "I love you" stage. It's not very likely to be. It would be more "Hey... when you dove on me to shield me from that rockslide... was that just instinct, or is there something you want to tell me?". Not just "I walk around dreaming of you... DO YOU DREAM OF ME?! *creepy wide-eyed stare*" Granted some characters might flirt with you, but that's different. That's kinda like someone being witty, instead of stoic. Something happens, like you get trapped in a small hiding spot or something, then you suddenly find out you've got to leave, and someone says "Pity we didn't stay in there a bit longer, *smirk*" or something. Some people are just like that. "You're handsome, so I'm gonna crack jokes about it frequently," sort of. *shrug* The problem with romance in most existing games is that it isn't very natural. It's very isolated, and very forced. Not that anyone who could ever possible express fondness is required to do it in a stupid way, thus we can't put that into games.

Said the swordsman to the disarmed archer. 6_u

Sorry to hear that, Namutree, <8(... May fortune find you.

They're very professional about their relationship, and realize that they don't have time to kiss (during the segments of time that the game cares about). They probably perform all manner of PDA in their free time, between Ganon epidemics, . Seriously, though, I always got the impression they were quite fond of one another. I mean, they always start out kind of platonic, because it's just a different-styled re-telling of the same "legend" (See what they did there?), over and over and over in every subsequent game. Their fates are obviously intertwined, what with the Triforce and whatnot, and it seems like they kind of come to know one another throughout each game. Clearly, the game is focused more on what's going on in the world/what needs to be done than what they'd like to do on a date. Which is how it should be. It's romance, but it's not "a romance" as some chunk of optional, completely-separate-from everything-else content. It's just there, in the midst of the story. It doesn't need kissing or dialogue. It's just pure bond.

That's excellent! That's two more bugs that won't be roaming around having litter after litter of puppies. 6_u