Template:No I've never really been convinced by the appearance that the text was carved into the stone. It looks like an obvious overlay, which breaks immersion rather than enhancing it. Like Lore-Based Loading Screens, I don't really feel this addition is worth the .esp slot. Kryptopyr (talk) 17:48, June 10, 2013 (MDT)
Template:No (interesting but very small change, and requires esp slot; there are other immersion mods I think are more useful) Kelmych (talk) 19:38, June 22, 2013 (MDT)
Template:No Bones look dirty, rough, and charred, which is appropriate in some cases but not all. Even old bones often have a smooth white appearance. Kryptopyr (talk) 17:51, June 10, 2013 (MDT)
Template:No Not an actually improvement from my standpoint. Techangel85 (talk) 01:57, June 11, 2013 (MDT)
Template:No I like these designs better than vanilla in most cases, but the mod probably strays too far from the vanilla style to be appropriate for Core STEP. Kryptopyr (talk) 17:55, June 10, 2013 (MDT)
Template:No I want to keep it for the pack, but I agree that the style is just over the line to be included in Core. Techangel85 (talk) 02:04, June 11, 2013 (MDT)
I don't feel that STEP necessarily needs to change it's recommendation, but I do think that Type A is closer to vanilla for the big sack, while Type B is closer for the small sack. Kryptopyr (talk) 14:18, June 16, 2013 (MDT)
HQ improvement. Wood is a bit darker than vanilla. Looks a bit out of place; however, so does vanilla IMO. Techangel85 (talk) 11:06, June 11, 2013 (MDT)
HQ vanilla-friendly improvementTechangel85 (talk) 11:09, June 11, 2013 (MDT)
Isn't the Legacy version more lore-friendly than the dragon runes? The inscriptions would have been intended for the Nords, not for the dragons, and while the Graybeards can read the dragon script, I'm not sure most pilgrims would be able to. (I prefer the Legacy version, but either one is an improvement) Kryptopyr (talk) 14:29, June 16, 2013 (MDT)
Most are HQ replacements. Some are too "vibrant" for vanilla IMO. (I could go either way on this one) Techangel85 (talk) 11:24, June 11, 2013 (MDT)
(potions are magical and should be distinctive; this mod includes a large set of HD replacements) Kelmych (talk) 14:18, June 13, 2013 (MDT)
Template:No Many of these look out of place compared to other vanilla items. Kryptopyr (talk) 14:34, June 16, 2013 (MDT)
Template:No We need some sort of visual identification for the items, right? But, conflicts with anything that modifies potions or booze in any way. Wish Bash had more patching functionality... (I love the idea, but I'm not sure about the implemtation) WilliamImm (talk) 21:22, June 16, 2013 (MDT)
HQ vanilla-friendly improvement. Not sure I would consider this vanilla-friendly. It definitely changes the appearance of the instruments. Techangel85 (talk) 11:25, June 11, 2013 (MDT)
Template:No The originals are much better and representative of low-tech minting that would have been prevalent in Skyrim. Also, vanilla looks more worn, which is better, IMO ~z929669Talk 12:13, June 24, 2013 (MDT)
Template:No (I still prefer Psychosteve's version; this also changes some shrine colors) Kelmych (talk) 20:17, June 22, 2013 (MDT)
Template:No Too different from Vanilla. I also really hate the blue water in Stendarr (what exactly is this material??) ~z929669Talk 12:13, June 24, 2013 (MDT)
HQ vanilla-friendly improvement Techangel85 (talk) 11:28, June 11, 2013 (MDT)
I completely agree with z, Ceramic version looks much better than RUPP. Kryptopyr (talk) 14:43, June 16, 2013 (MDT)
(I prefer RUPP which has better distinctive HD bottles but these are closer to vanilla; RUPP should be in the new pack as an optional replacement as I feel most users prefer it) Kelmych (talk) 20:19, June 22, 2013 (MDT)
Template:No (only 2 of the textures are HD; the remaining ones are similar quality to vanilla. Except for the 2 HD ones I prefer the ones in RUPP (similar to the choice made for TPC)) Kelmych (talk) 19:45, June 22, 2013 (MDT)
Template:No I don't believe this to be a vanilla oversight Techangel85 (talk) 11:31, June 11, 2013 (MDT)
the gems should be visually distinctive and they aren't sufficiently so in vanilla Kelmych (talk) 14:16, June 13, 2013 (MDT)
Template:No Most of the selections would be a departure from vanilla, and preferences may vary wildly (from colorful Morrowind-style to only subtle differences in color) so I think this one is best suited to packs. Kryptopyr (talk) 22:11, June 15, 2013 (MDT)
The vanilla-friendly versions are true to vanilla and also allow distinctions among the types -- and a correction to a vanilla oversight, IMO. Also, there is already a precedent for differing SGs in TES games. ~z929669Talk 12:13, June 24, 2013 (MDT)
Talk 11:28, June 24, 2013 (MDT)
Kryptopyr (talk) 17:43, June 10, 2013 (MDT)
Pack Solist (talk) 21:25, June 25, 2013 (MDT)
