please do something about the dialogue box

[Lachoon]

Originally posted by Gulshog
Oh, I don't know, so maybe that after people spend 50 bucks on a game they have a huge variety of portraits for all gamers. Even those who want a Drow portrait on a regular elf. Why is it such a big deal? DONT USE IT.

Wouldn't it then make more sense to just focus on the races you allow and add the ability to add custom portraits?

Originally posted by Gulshog
It's not ass licking.

yes it is

[seanly]

Originally posted by poolofpoo
the font is fine, the GUI isn't, but you'd probably like it even if it was all pink with teddy bears on the frames you fanboi you...

If the GUI is smaller with the 'sci-fi' look than I'm okay with it. It would add to the game to make a more period-looking GUI, but I can live with what they have now. I wouldn't call myself a fanboi (did you mean fanboy?) as I thought Arcanum was pretty dull &

[Gulshog]

Originally posted by poolofpoo
yes it is

I'm not 3 years old, so I don't have the ability to sit here all day and reply back to you with, "No, it isn't." My response to you in the first instance is more than enough for you, I am sure.

@Lachoon: I can see your point, but since we do not know just how many portraits are done, then I can't make a judgement call. It could well be that they have tons of portraits to choose from, and decided to give the art team a chance to make some truly unique ones to add some spice to the game.

Originally posted by Gulshog
I'm not 3 years old, so I don't have the ability to sit here all day and reply back to you with, "No, it isn't."

and yet somehow you do it anyway

[Banedir]

I think the interface looks very good. The green might be more appropriate for futuristic games (It worked well in Fallout) but it seems to work here; I think you can get away with it in any polished-looking computer game.

The portraits look good - it's nice to see a couple of new ones in there. It's good to see that there are emote/descriptive things in with the dialogue.

As for dark elf PCs or NPCs, if they exist in the campaign world, then I suppose its fair game.

Me, I like dark elves, but hate drow..."drow" is a really ugly word, and all these short funky dudes with an underground spider fixation do absolutely nothing for me. Now Warhammer dark elves are dark elves, you know?

[olaf]

I also think the color scheme used in the interface is not so hot. The font too while we are the subject.

Still, **** both of those minor issues, give me the game and I'll be happy.

olaf

Back to the Drow topic.

Uh, true to form of the original ToEE, not changing anything drastic??? That's pretty drastic and not true to the form of the original ToEE. Even if there are drow NPCs in the game, are we going to find out that there is some massively involved story to put that Drow character in? Probably not. Most likely, we'll just see them wandering in the dungeon and we'll attack them. Totally lame.

And this makes me wander what 'other' spins have been placed. Be weary of the Pre-Order fad.

Originally posted by Banedir

Me, I like dark elves, but hate drow..."drow" is a really ugly word, and all these short funky dudes with an underground spider fixation do absolutely nothing for me. Now Warhammer dark elves are dark elves, you know?

Warhammer Dark Elves always seemed to be inspired by Melnibonians (from the Elric novels). And yes, they are far cooler than drow.

Some of us were gaming PRIOR to the arrival of Drizzt and remember drow from Greyhawk adventures as being largely unseen, powerful and sneaky adversaries. FR completely DESTROYED the drow, though I suspect all the fanboys think it made them cooler somehow. Drow ONCE were cool and mysterious, now they've been overused to the point of ridiculousness. What was wrong with a little mystery?

[seanly]

Originally posted by Vaeron
Some of us were gaming PRIOR to the arrival of Drizzt and remember drow from Greyhawk adventures as being largely unseen, powerful and sneaky adversaries. FR completely DESTROYED the drow, though I suspect all the fanboys think it made them cooler somehow. Drow ONCE were cool and mysterious, now they've been overused to the point of ridiculousness. What was wrong with a little mystery?

Amen, brother old-timer!

I think part of it is that people wanted to play drow because of their coolness. And making them so common ruined their coolness & destroyed them. They've become as much a cliche as the overused you-think-she's-old-&-crotchety-but-she's-really-a-cool-grandma sitcom stereotype.

[Volourn]

The drow were never "cool" prior to Drizzt. They were "mysterious"; not "cool". And, they still can be "mysterious" if used right.

People should just realize the only thing 'special' about the drow is that they are elves with black skin who did some 'bad' things, and were pinihsed by their creator by sending them to hell (the Underdark).

Seriously, other than their extra powers, they ain't that special.

Plus, I think it's a good thing that the row are differntied between the FR, and GH. It be pretty boring if the FR drow were copy cats of the GH drow. It be like havinhg the same exact gods shared by the two worlds. That'd be boring.

I think the problem is that the GH fanboys are just plain jealous that their munchkin world is less popular then the munchkin world of the Realms. Jealousy is green,a nd is not your friend. I like GH; but really; it ain' that special. Heck, I'm looking forward to TOEE inspite of its setting.

Also, poo, overall, I like the dialogue box. It's pretty good.

[seanly]

I think Greyhawk is less popular than Forgotten Realms as most of us who played 1st ed AD&D stopped playing a long time ago. Maybe not some of the posters here though...

Greyhawk was the only official campaign setting in the late 70s & early 80s. Most of the modules were set there or could be shoe-horned in. IIRC that was the time when AD&D was at the height of it's popularity. I don't know when Forgotten Realms came into use, but it's hard to sustain interest in Greyhawk for new players if there aren't any official products made for it. Didn't TSR drop Greyhawk after they railroaded Gary Gygax out the door?

Anyway, my love for Greyhawk is because of my past famalairity with it. I'm not big into nostalgia except with regards to the setting of this game. Maybe Troika is going with Greyhawk adventures coz BG, NWN & IWD have all mined the crap out of FR and we have to go back to find something fresh.

[Volourn]

Hey, like I said, I like Greyhawk too; but some people seem to think being less popular means being automatically better.

Also, there is a lot more to the Realms than just the IWD,a nd BG areas. The Realms are huge.

Why can't the FR and GH fanboyds all get along!?

[roonechr]

Greyhawk is the default setting for 3rd edition. All of the info the core books relates to it, and the official RPGA campaign is Living Greyhawk. The Dungeons and Dragons novels are set in Greyhawk. Greyhawk isn't just for the old school.

IMO both Greyhawk and FR are viable, interesting settings.

As far as the drow (dark elf, whatever) portrait goes, I'm pretty sure that is just a PC portrait. There is no indication that you meet any drow in the game, and no reason cancel your pre-order.

[seanly]

I don't have a pre-order, but may put one in when I get ESPN NFL for my Xbox in a couple of weeks.

I wasn't aware that Greyhawk was still in use in D&D. I haven't rolled dice since 1995. That was for one summer when I lived with my little brother using our dusty 1st edition tomes. Actually, we went through the original ToEE module. We had fun, but my time staying with him started to get short and we kinda rushed the last quarter. I should've just stayed with him instead of going on to a 2nd grad school...

[Volourn]

Yeah, GH is used as the "basic' setting for the rules book.

Back to the GUI, I'm not sure I like how spells are expressed. Personally I liked the icons used in the IE games. I think a more pictoral expresion would have been better.

Otherwise it seems like everything is set up nice, if nothing else it seems all the important information is easy to find. I guess once I get used to it the colors might not be a bother me at all, although it would be nice to be able to customize them if that's not already in.

[Lachoon]

Originally posted by birdiedude
Back to the GUI, I'm not sure I like how spells are expressed. Personally I liked the icons used in the IE games. I think a more pictoral expresion would have been better.

Otherwise it seems like everything is set up nice, if nothing else it seems all the important information is easy to find. I guess once I get used to it the colors might not be a bother me at all, although it would be nice to be able to customize them if that's not already in.

Link to a pic of these spells?

[roonechr]

Link

They are written out as words - "Cure Moderate Wounds" - instead of as symbols - Blue Cross representing Cure Moderate Wounds.

Originally posted by roonechr
Link

They are written out as words - "Cure Moderate Wounds" - instead of as symbols - Blue Cross representing Cure Moderate Wounds.

That screenshot makes them look like ass. Hopefully that's been polished up a little bit since that build...

[Banedir]

Personally I liked the icons used in the IE games.

I'm almost speechless...how could anyone possibly like those dull, dreary, and downright ugly excuses for spell icons? They weren't just bad, they were so abysmally bad that they actually detracted in some small way from the games. Except in Planescape: Torment, the spell icons for that game were beautiful...ok, and Icewind Dale's icons were better than Baldur's Gate's. But...ewww! The spell icons were probably my least favorite thing in BGI (which was an awesome game).

The spell icons in Arcanum were beautiful though, so we know Troika can get that stuff right!

I'm actually quite happy they're using words over icons, even though I love a good spell icon...it reminds me of some very, very old Dungeons and Dragons games which had a very satisfying spell interface.

I liked them once I got used to them. I mean they're spell icons... nothing too much there; as long as they convey what spell you're picking, great.

[troika_hnguyen]

Originally posted by Telastyn
That screenshot makes them look like ass. Hopefully that's been polished up a little bit since that build...

yes, optimizations in the renderer caused the text in the radialmenu to look screwed for a few days - everyone complained, heh . that's the risk you run when you have a reviewer drop by one day and take a daily build that's in the process of being fixed... :P

don't worry, the artists above all want the game to look goood and will beat us if it doesn't! *fears the whacking stick*

Originally posted by troika_hnguyen
yes, optimizations in the renderer caused the text in the radialmenu to look screwed for a few days - everyone complained, heh . that's the risk you run when you have a reviewer drop by one day and take a daily build that's in the process of being fixed... :P

don't worry, the artists above all want the game to look goood and will beat us if it doesn't! *fears the whacking stick*

Heh, I do QA for a living, and know how those daily builds tend to end up in places they don't really belong and end up representing something they're not really supposed to.

[edit: PS. thanks for the quick commentary, and general attention too]

[roonechr]

The problem with the radial menu is the large number of sublevels involved to get to what you want. I don't know how easy it would be to code but it would be nice to see them eliminate these when possible, for example not showing the class sublevel under spells if you only have one spellcasting class.

Originally posted by Banedir
I'm almost speechless...how could anyone possibly like those dull, dreary, and downright ugly excuses for spell icons? They weren't just bad, they were so abysmally bad that they actually detracted in some small way from the games. Except in Planescape: Torment, the spell icons for that game were beautiful...ok, and Icewind Dale's icons were better than Baldur's Gate's. But...ewww! The spell icons were probably my least favorite thing in BGI (which was an awesome game).

The spell icons in Arcanum were beautiful though, so we know Troika can get that stuff right!

I'm actually quite happy they're using words over icons, even though I love a good spell icon...it reminds me of some very, very old Dungeons and Dragons games which had a very satisfying spell interface.

I was thinking more of the spellbook interface seen here: http://www.gamespy.com/previews/augu...eofeepc/37.jpg

Sure the IE icons could have used a lot of work, especially given the fact that the icon rarely seemed to represent the spell they cast meaning I had to tool tip them until I had all the important ones memorized.

But the spellbook interface just felt nicer than this dreary and uninspiringly simplistic interface. I don't know, a picture's worth a thousand words and all that

[troika_hnguyen]

Originally posted by roonechr
The problem with the radial menu is the large number of sublevels involved to get to what you want. I don't know how easy it would be to code but it would be nice to see them eliminate these when possible, for example not showing the class sublevel under spells if you only have one spellcasting class.

one problem we had with a 100% dynamic radialmenu is that we are aiming for consistency whenever possible. the radialmenu works best once you get acclimated to how the structure/setup is - if the lowest levels of the menu are constantly changing (and in some cases, they do, e.g. if you don't have Spells at all), then you will have a more difficult time "mastering" the interface.

ideally, if the UI is designed well in the first place, then the need for customizability/etc lessens to an extent. ...i myself only have one hotkey, that being for "5 foot step".

...good thoughts, all! QA is currently throwing around radialmenu suggestions as well (of course, they actually get to playtest the game instead of viewing screenshots )

[troika_hnguyen]

Originally posted by birdiedude
Sure the IE icons could have used a lot of work, especially given the fact that the icon rarely seemed to represent the spell they cast meaning I had to tool tip them until I had all the important ones memorized.

But the spellbook interface just felt nicer than this dreary and uninspiringly simplistic interface. I don't know, a picture's worth a thousand words and all that

yes, the design standpoint was to go for simplistic/minimal and avoid the need to constantly hover over icons to find out what a spell/skill/feat does.

of course, similarly, the screenshot doesn't show it, but when you hover over a spells/skills/feats' name, it displays a short description in the text box at the bottom of the interface. but names over icons was a conscious decision.

as for dreary and uninspiring, well, to each his/her own

Speaking of wearing prawnshell dresses, will the third/fourth mouse button and/or/xor mouse wheel be supported in any way? Hmmm?