What are you talking about? What does science have to do with character models in WoW? If you're trying to say that players having an option of using either the old or new models will be a bad thing then I feel you're sorely mistaken. It's about the same as the doomsayers claiming that if Blizzard implements X feature the game will die or lose millions of subscribers.
I'm pretty sure Blizzard has enough experience to be able to implement a toggle for character models that wouldn't be a detriment to the game. I'm sorry that you feel the need to impose your view of how the game should be played on people but ultimately choice is almost never a bad thing.
I'm still running XP at home, if they're still planning to drop support for it they've delayed it.
Didn't WoW originally run on 2000? I can't remember if they ever supported 98, although I remember when I started playing they didn't support it... though that was during Wrath :P
The answer has already been given:
So IT IS ABOUT Classic impression and down here statement is wrong:
If this:
then why you even here to argue with us?
It really has, again read the link above.
It will, again read the link.
We aren't talking about opinions here, we're talking about justice, I can argue endlessly with you (see the signature) how ugly and misplaced new models are, but topic isn't about this at all, so stop with misdirection discussion.
That's mean that you're not care, so why do you even here?
It's not the people like us, but I'll correct your mistake:"it's not about new fancy grafics"-that's what we said (note, I don't call it "better" deliberately, because there is nothing to do with this word for new models).
You don't understand, this is more about classic discussion, and most of us already not playing in current version of the game (read signature).
We don't care about amount of work, topic isn't about this.
It's do affect, again - read the link in quote.
This will only prove that Blizzard failed again.
Have you ever thought that it could be because of people like you?
(trolling answer to troll's statement - I think it's fair)
No one will offend anyone until everyone will try to be nice to each one.
1: It's not purest discussion.
2: Again - link is up here, use placeholders from old (+ most animations are just combination of animations parts from standart kit)
3: And the answer how to do it propper is in link.
(It's not clear why there is talk about democracy, despite the fact that it doesn't dictate anything to you in appearance. A question arises: do you really from America?)
4: It's just your opinion and nothing more so we back to "opinions"-offtopic.
(Polygons and texture quality don't mean that they are "better", they could be made fully according to old consepts and with new polygons, so everything would look quite different, what proves, that word "better" isn't applicable here at all)
And by the way - No, they are not
Last edited by Alkizon; 2017-11-27 at 06:59 AM.
__---=== PM me WHERE if I'm unnecessarily "notifying" you ===---__
4 things OP
1: The only way you're getting vanilla in it's purest form is to literally build a time machine and go back in time. There will be changes. There already is with 13 years of computer technology progress. Even with old models we'll still be playing classic with better graphics than it ever actually had.
2: They did indeed add new ANIMATIONS in 7.3. Spriest has the most noticeable with some of them causing them to levitate and move their arms in a casting animation that didn't exist before. Every class/spec got these except for all lock specs and holy paladins. (Which probably will in the future).
3: I can't tell if you're a troll, or just moderately insane. "There is no option, so make it how I want it to be!" Which doesn't seem fair. In a democracy typically you go with the majority choice, however if possible you obviously attempt to please everyone. A toggle will please the majority. You can get all conspiracy theory "But meh nostalgia". But it doesn't really matter. This doesn't effect you and your paranoia about it effected you is nonsensical.
4: New character models are OBJECTIVELY better. You might dislike them aesthetically and that's a subjective viewpoint. However when you look at it from an objective viewpoint they are better. They have a higher poly count, they are capable of preforming more animations. They simply better empirically.
Like I could set my computer to a low resolution because I think games look better that way, or the nostalgia reminds me of eras long past. (Seriously WoW on lowest settings reminds me of PS1). But even if I like it better aesthetically it is still objectively inferior to using the highest resolution available.
Last edited by serendipity11; 2017-11-16 at 08:14 AM.
Let's get 1 thing straight, I'm not
Democracy utopia killed 10B people in the history. It does not exist and will never exist. Authoritarian is always much better than democracy.
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.T...democracy.html
Democracy has brought societies which are monotonous and uniform, at least to some of the people who live in them. But not only that. Democracy has failed to bring utopia. That is, it has failed to bring into existence any proposed ideal society, or any other proposal of a 'utopian' type. Democracy itself can be labelled a 'utopia', and the present liberal-democratic societies are historically unique - nothing like them existed before the 19th century. So, in that sense, democracy has brought at least a new democratic society, which is itself an ideal society for some people. But nothing else. No dramatically new type of society has emerged among the democracies, differing from the standard model of these societies. And most liberal-democrats would in fact be hostile to the label 'utopia' being applied to these liberal-democratic societies.
The liberal tradition is resolutely hostile to utopias: anti-utopianism seems a defining characteristic of liberal ideology. That hostility has shaped the present liberal-democratic societies. Liberal anti-utopianism and democratic anti-totalitarianism are in practice the same thing. Some liberals explicitly equate the two, and see totalitarianism as the result of utopian ideals. They believe that the 20th-century totalitarian regimes derive from the European utopian tradition. The early-modern ideal city, the ideal city-states of the type described in Thomas More's original book 'Utopia", were for them the source of all later evil. (Many postmodernists share this distaste for utopia, and the belief that there is a direct line from Thomas More to Auschwitz). In other words, there are liberal-democrats who believe that the political system should be so structured, as to save society from utopian experiments. To them, democracy is (at least partly) a mechanism to prevent utopia. I think they are right about the nature of democracy: but it is democracy, not utopia, which must disappear.
Poly count =/= objectively better. Sphere has infinite polygons. Do you want your character look like a sphere?4: New character models are OBJECTIVELY better. You might dislike them aesthetically and that's a subjective viewpoint. However when you look at it from an objective viewpoint they are better. They have a higher poly count, they are capable of preforming more animations. They simply better empirically.
Your opinion is your opinion. I would also argue low details are much better since high details = characters look older. Just like your grandma looks older because her face has more details. That is exactly what I think of new models, too old.
Last edited by cqwrteur; 2017-11-16 at 09:01 PM.