curryinahurry

^ It's funny, I initially had the same thought looking at the VFX, but then thought, it's likely to be only a portion of the screen in-game. Honestly, I think it will be fine once additional lighting and other environmental effects are added.

Nice Update. Grass roof for Twin Elms looks remarkable, as does the wave action in the VFX video. I'm not as thrilled about the armour and the proportions seem a bit off, but it may look fine with some context. Since you folks mentioned the Backer Beta, I'd be interested in knowing how far along in the process will we have to wait for that; at the very end of Beta, or a bit before? Cheers

I think that by a fair margin, in terms of storytelling possibilities, the most interesting thing the Obsidian folks are doing is the faction and local reputation system. I think that the moral relativism that can be created in this system can lead to a lot of grey areas worth exploring. Also, I think that this allows people to role play their own moral positions if Obsidian can represent enough latitude in solutions. I'm not convinced that the Obsidian folks completely understand all of the ramifications of what they're taking on with Animancy. But I think it's an interesting problem they've set up, and I think they've bought themselves a bit of leeway in how they might handle it.

With regards to everything having a soul; of course you are correct, but think my point about Animism is that non-human entities in Eora have the potential for souls (it might be possible that only higher life forms have any sort of soul-dislocation problems...who knows). This provides a vast resource for Animancers without ever getting human souls into the mix, and thus avoiding potential moral quagmires (unless such an animacer runs into a druid or early eco-terrorist). Also, when I referred to eugenics (which I may have used incorrectly upon reflection), I was thinking more about direct manipulation of the souls as opposed to the breeding aspects. Attempts to directly strengthen or fix souls, but also the belief that by taking weaker souls out of the Lottery of Souls by using them in other ways could help alleviate degenerative conditions ascribed to souls that are somehow flawed or 'weak'. It will be interesting to see how Obsidian deals with the issue of observing souls; if it's a real thing in the game or just alluded to, in order to encourage player skepticism.

Update 65, regarding Ciphers, started with a captioned image of an Orlan Cipher trying to communicate with a "housed soul". If we take the existence of souls for granted (that there has been some objective recognition/ observation that souls do indeed exist), then the PoE setting can be assumed to be Animist (everything has a soul). It can also be thought of as hierarchical based on the "quality" of the soul ('awakened' vs. 'storng' vs 'fractured', etc.). What we don't know is whether souls are generic or of a type(is a human soul always a human soul? Can a human soul be polluted by other types of souls?). If souls are topological in nature (maybe even if they're not, then a fairly clear hierarchy of souls. While this may be influenced by the god one worships (a worshiper of a nature god might find certain activities that cause housed souls in plants 'pain' abhorrent), there would likely develop a view of tampering with souls as increasingly permissive as it traveled away from the 'preferred' souls towards those most easily considered 'the other.' This may even lead to a type of eugenics, were experimenting on those souls not deemed of quality might be considered to certain groups fine as the goal is to create a more pure result. Pretty nasty stuff potentially. One thing we don't know is if souls can be manipulated against the will of the thing that houses it. Or if the condition of the souls effects such manipulation.

Leveling by chapters/ game area can be controlled by amount of content available at any one time. We've already been told by Josh Sawyer that; a) he didn't like the BG-2 quest dumps and that b) the largest xp mine in the game, the Endless Paths, is going to outpace the leveling ability of the PC & party. This leads me to believe that Obsidian is likely to keep quests 'level relevant' by controlling access; both in terms of when and where within the game. I'm not sure if this is the best solution, and it may be a bummer for the people who want to take on large chunks of the Endless Paths (if not the whole thing) at one time), but it certainly helps to control over-leveling. If you add to the above, the possibility that leveling in PoE is likely to be less exponential than in the IE games, being one level above the intended crit-path encounter may not be that much of a big deal. That said, there a couple of other factors to consider in this discussion that go beyond the level of the PC & party along the critical path. the primary issue is that completionists (like myself) have a tendency to not only be over-leveled, but also to have the best loot in the game, because we've done every single quest and overturned every single rock , and rifled every single house in a given area. Another issue comes from the fact that most completionists are likely to also take advantage of the crafting system and the stronghold system. Once you start factoring these variable into the game, the potential for party strength of a fully optimized party could be considerably greater than for another party at the same level that isn't so outfitted. In other words, power gamers and completionists tend to have an easier time, and it isn't always going to be about the relative level about the encounters. Hopefully, playing on Hard will make for a suitable challenge.

Always enjoy the technical updates; thanks. It really looks great for the most part, but I will agree with others that the static shadows are a bit odd. Also, the female character on the left being back-lit by the dynamic lighting but not casting a shadow is a bit odd. Of course, in-game, these things may be less noticeable. Hopefully we'll get a gameplay animation soon that helps answer these questions.

Also Rangers seem to be ranged-exclusive at the moment. Highlighting in your text something that is bothering me about the way the classes are being set up; not so much that some classes are flexible and some are not, but that some classes have an underlying constraint, mechanic, gimmick, what have you that drives the logic for their necessary inflexibility (ranger, monk) while others (cleric) have none. If classes have no such underlying mechanics, then we should have some flexibility in how they are built. I don't mind a priest being a support character, but if I can't make him/her useful at melee on occasion, there should be some type of reasoning, not just, "because priest."

Will Paladins will gain Priest spells? I don't recall that being stated, and if not that's a significant differentiator. The writeup on Paladins explains the other differences between the two faith-based classes. I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not concerned that the priest class will be too similar to paladins or anything else; my concern is that the priest is fairly dull in its class mechanics when compared to other classes like the Chanter. The underlying class mechanics for the Priest should be beefed up so there is an intrinsic liogic for why the priest has the abilities it has. Also, as others have nicely pointed out in this thread, the use of 'faith' as catalyst for class mechanics could be a fairly deep mine for fleshing out the Priest and allowing for a variety of builds based on the god one might choose to follow.

The issue I have with the priest isn't so much about power or flexibility (we don't know yet what other directions the class can be nudged) as it is about uninspiring class mechanics. Compared to the other spell slingers, the Wizard and Druid, the Priest seems to be a bit generic. The most interesting aspect of the class, the faith based power scale, it shares with paladins. Not that it's a bad thing, but if there was a way to make faith more integral across the board for the class, it would go a long way towards making Priests interesting to me. Why not make the at will powers influenced by the god followed? Why not have priests gain bonuses for spells in their respective gods' dominion (Magran; bonuses for fire + deflection, Berath; bonuses for necromancy, etc.)? Hell, if you stray to far from the core beliefs of a god, maybe there could be a special heretic or reformer path open up. As it stands right now, anything that gave the class some identity would be welcome.

I thought that was the whole point of the Kickstarter effort: to bring back some of the feel of the IE games. Remember, BG was based on AD&D. I understand the decision...I was pointing out that it seems like backtracking at this point, but that is Obsidian's prerogative, and yes, I agree they have the right to do so. The problem I have is that there is little in this update that seems like an update or fresh take. If you add into this, the fact that PoE has no multi-classing or kits/prestige classes, so some of the customization available in BG 2 won't be present, it makes the class seem fairly dull compared to many of the other classes we've read about. Btw, Support /= Dull. I wouldn't mind Priests being support characters if the mechanics and character abilities were as engaging as Chanters. That's not the case as of right now.

The Chanter sounds really interesting, and the idea of building chants/ invocations, hunting down lore for new combinations, etc. could make the class tremendous fun. The Priest class is fairly uninspiring by comparison. I had thought that the class was going to be a bit more Paladin-esque, but I guess Obsidian decided to go in a different direction; re-cycling a 2E feel. Still, besides the reinforcing of faith based behavior, there is little about the class that seems fresh. Actually, from what we've seen so far, the re-branded or new classes seem to be much more interesting than the 'core four', which feel quite flat by comparison. I'm not sure if this is deliberate on Obsdian's part (trying to keep the IE feel), but I'm a bit concerned as the vast majority will play one of these classes and many will be disappointed if they can't make a build to their liking.

I can think of another example too. Weapon and armor degradation. That one is a quite a glaring example since it's actually a mechanic that they put in, then announced it in an update, then removed it after feedback. Also Intellect as the ability from which damage bonus is derived. There are also several other moments I can think of over the past 18 months where developers solicited forum advice (usually in the form of a preference) after a discussion was started about a feature by someone who had concerns about implementation or appropriateness. Its happening less now as the game is well on its way towards completion, but the Obsidian folks were pretty active in certain discussion during, and for several months after, the Kickstarter Campaign. For the most part, I think they have handled this aspect of dealing with concerns and objections quite well.

Are there sub-menus or do spells, abilities, etc. just continue to run horizontally towards right? If there are sub-menus, do they form a second row above the first row of primary abilities?

Ah, good point, thanks.

@ Sensuki What makes you now think that this might be the real UI? I thought that it might be because the central brick of action buttons seems to imply pop-up sub-menus...especially when you look at formations (lowest right on left side action buttons) but I'm wondering if you notice something else. Also, I agree with IndiraLightfoot about the health/stamina bars. The bars also may not be activated for some characters if the person playing is god moding through or just testing animations, etc. Like I stated earlier, this looks very NWN2, which is exactly 180 degrees from where they stated they were going with this. BTW, pop-up menus support vertical orientation of portraits. it's going to be awfully messy to click on a portrait then move up to click on action vs. clicking on portrait and scrolling left or right in line w the portrait.

The question, with regards to game UI design, should then what are the benefits of orienting certain UI elements (portraits) vertically vs horizontally. Your assertion is that horizontal, unified UI orientation is best because it leads to the greatest economy of mouse movement. ..... I think the bold part covers it. And, as I stated, the science contradicts your assertion; right left scanning (eyes, mouse, what have you) is much more efficient than up-down. Based on the the current UI layout, one would have to glance down and left to see characters, and then across to the other side of the screen to view the combat log; very inefficient. Truth is, that unless your playing on a truly massive screen and sitting very close to it, viewing elements at a glance shouldn't be a problem regardless of where they are located. Different players will have different preferences in that regard. Personally, what I would like is for some mod-ability in the UI to accommodate personal preference, but I don't think we'll get it. The reason I come back to mouse movement is that was part of Sawyer's rationale for organizing the UI along the bottom, and it just isn't true. The central argument was set up as aesthetics vs functionality; which I (and others) have pointed out is a false dichotomy; there is no demonstrable gain in functionality in this sort of layout that trumps an aesthetic argument for an L or U shaped interface more reminiscent of the IE games.

I read those very informative posts by Josh which state that there will be potions in the game and that they are emphasizing on the effects being quite powerful. I can assume healing pots will also be present consequently (btw, drinking pots will trigger an animation which can be interrupted). As for replying to topic, I would prefer item swapping is non-existent than it being there and allowing us to exploit it (as in older IE games). *Edit*: forgot to add address of Josh's posts here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3593502&userid=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=5 *2nd Edit*: I'm sorry, the address requires you to subscribe, see the content by accessing this topic: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64979-josh-sawyer-talks-about-stealth-mechanics/?hl=stealth Unless something has changed recently, there will be no health potions in PoE. It has been stated on several occasions. Also, healing ( outside of resting/ camping) will only effect stamina, not health (in other words, regeneration of stamina). Stamina will regenerate at a fast rate outside of combat as well.

And none of that research has anything to do with video games or video game UI design. Again, I don't care about mouse clicks or movements. Action will be on center screen, not the top left corner. You need to quickly see party status, action bars, maybe even a combat log at a glance. You can't "glance" to the top left or top right corner of your screen without looking away from the center of it. You want the important elements placed in such a way that you can still see them without having to "look away". Assuming for a minute god descends and demands the party window has to be in a corner.... it is still better in the bottom left or bottom right corner simply because it unifies the UI and keeps it organized on one "row". Lastly a video game is not a book. You aren't going to play a video game the same way you read a book. They just aren't even similar. Ok, I'm going to try to explain this again.... The human eye sees more conveniently horizontally than vertically; the science behind this is indisputable. Mouse movement is more convenient clockwise (for the right handed) to counter counter-clockwise; again indisputable. It doesn't matter if if this is in gaming context or with regards to using power point. the mechanics remain the same. The question, with regards to game UI design, should then what are the benefits of orienting certain UI elements (portraits) vertically vs horizontally. Your assertion is that horizontal, unified UI orientation is best because it leads to the greatest economy of mouse movement. My assertion (along with Hassat Hunter's and others) is that this argument works best for games where Character information is either unimportant or limited to an individual. In a party based RPG where the player has a desire to constantly check status effects, health, etc., the movement of the eye downward, away from the center of the screen and in a much less efficient manner than horizontally, trumps mouse travel, which is minimized due to mouse acceleration, pace of action, pause functions, etc. Add to that the fact that clockwise mouse travel is more convenient than the down-left, counterclockwise travel in the proposed UI, and you're talking about a much less efficient design. As I stated previously, your argument seems to be, "other successful games have this type of UI so PoE is right to adopt the same." My argument is that these seem to follow personal preference based on the designer's experience or rule of thumb knowledge based on arbitrary gaming conventions not ties to a game type, which is a terrible way of solving a design problem.

Agree, and that's what I'm resigned to as well. It would be nice if they included some mod-ability (solid frame and left/right vertical orientaion of portraits) but that is highly unlikely. Still, Sawyer commented a while back about not wanting a "wireframe" look a la NWN for this UI, and that is exactly where they are right now. Even is they add filler, I can't see this looking like an IE style UI (unless they do a much larger frame).

There has been a fair amount of research into how the eyes and hands work with regards to computer screens, and from I've read (which isn't that much), the science supports these facts. I've not read anything that supports images and action bars at the bottom of the screen. I personally think this is one of those "rule of thumb" conventions that evolved around action or FPS type games and now many think is best design practice. Designing by rule of thumb is very dangerous and usually leads to half-arsed solutions.

^ I've stated in a previous thread, as have others, that the human eye tracks more comfortably horizontally than vertically. Our field of vision is also much stronger horizontal vs vertical. I think that is why so many people prefer vertical orientation of portraits in this type of game; having to track status effects, health & stamina, and 5 companions. Also, the arguments about mouse travel and efficiency are pretty much rubbish. With mouse acceleration, movement direction becomes much more important; clockwise for right-handed individuals is much more convenient than counter-clockwise (which is what the current UI arrangement uses).

This UI has strayed quite far away from the IE type UI's; even IWD2. If they are going to go in this direction, it's probably better that it not be a solid bar across the bottom as filler still won't give the kind of solid look that the IE games have. I would agree with others that in this incarnation, having the panels be adjustable to run vertically along the edge of the screen for those who prefer that type of orientation, would be preferable to a bunch of filigree that just takes up space.

Just had a chance to re-listen to the track, and I really like it. I think that it has the kind of pastoral feeling I would associate with small town/ countryside. It also nicely captures the feeling of a day cycle or travel (whichever the intent was). Like a few other comments, I would also agree that the one weak point is the introduction of the horns, not so much the result as once they melded in, the result is very nice and sets a more august tone. Anyway, great update, both insights into process and also the results. Cheers,

A nice topic...Anything that adds atmosphere and depth to the world is welcome. I like the idea of Party NPC's initiating conversations with the player in such settings. Also, the opportunity to find out about the locality; rumors, gossip, jobs, etc. It would also be interesting if we travel to a location where a party member was from there were special interactions for that NPC in the tavern/inn. Not just in the NPC character arc quest sense, but smaller things like the NPC leaving the party to say hello to friends, or the bartender pulling the NPC aside to have a private conversation about something, that may or may not be relevant to the party later on. Also, the ability to find out quest related information due to having insider status in a given locale.