Quillon

Parvati has two different writers; Chris L'Etoile and Kate Dollarhyde. I don't know who wrote what part of her content but am assuming Chris wrote the Edgewater part then Kate took over. With the info on Parvati's/her father's terminal and the conversation with her about it suggested that her quest was gonna be about her long lost mom, about reuniting them probably. Then we arrive at Groundbreaker; from this point on her mom is forgotten, never to be mentioned again and her asexual lesbian quest line starts. Make of this what you will

That effect is weird, it should be used for loss of rep if for anything.

Well, see it as you see fit. Its rather obvious to me, I might be wrong but I believe I'm not No point in debating further, my only concern was/is: Hope its unfounded.

Because its used for the team working on the game. Because the statement made after the director's "ideology" for the game.

Yeah it would have been stating the obvious if it was "a director's ideology does not represent the entire team or their views"(as Infinitron pointed out) or some other similar meaning word/s, but saying "intent" there suggests she and the team might have been intending something else than their director. If it was out of the blue, stating the obvious, not at all connected to what Leonard's been saying to press, why would some of us take issue with it?

Hence the word "intent", they should be intending to uphold their leads' vision for the game, they might not be able to stay 100% true to that but they are paid to do what their positions requires. So saying "our intents differ" is absurd in this context.

She and "the entire team" working on TOW should be obligated to share Tim & Leo's intent for the game no? Otherwise why appoint directors/vision holders for the game? She can ofc have different political views etc. Everyone has. Unrelated to topic at hand: The only "ideology" Leonard stated is that he doesn't support pushing political agendas in his games, if someone disagrees with it, it's a red flag from me, hope they won't have the chance to push their agendas, either aligning with my own views or not, in future Obs games.

In this day and age its used exclusively for "pushing political agenda". I have struggled at first with what people meant when they say "political games"; telling to myself: "I like politics/power struggles in games, why is it a problem now?" etc. then I understood what they meant Anyway, should we think of TOW as a non-political agenda pushing game like Leonard says or should we expect agenda pushing here & there from various developers now? Since they may have intended anything, which could make Leonard a liar.

RTwP is best when the game's fully 3D/with custom viewing angles for clarity & fun TB might be better on the 2D maps of PoE but I prefer RTwP either way.

Since they won't add an optional top-down rtwp gameplay, I'm not interested in pausing in first person view, slow-mo is a better option in this situation for fps game play or for me. What I'm more curious to know is: since in Tactical Time Dilation shots can be snapped to individual body parts, will there be dismemberment? if there won't be dismemberment It would be a bit pointless to hit anywhere other than heads, at least for humanoid targets.

I'm doubtful atm if the game has face/hair customization? It could be helmet-ed protag in perma-first-person-perspective.

Why does the game have to have magic? Magic is for the weak everyone knows that! Dungeons & No Dragons ftw!

That's Firebrand, a summoned weapon. As I said in the original post, I think the summoned weapons look quite nice, and I wish some other uniques looked similar, Hmn, thought it was gonna be a unique flaming sword since it says "burning lash" in that vid.

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1dRJZPPAWoQKB Is this in the game?

Any chance for attack/ability animation speeds to be in gamedata in the future? Or speed slider's data if it ain't just time manipulation