Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-19-2010 @ 8:06AM
Andrew R. said...
The problem with focusing on making the world look "fresh" and "new" is that it won't matter how good the scenery is if your character looks terrible. You have to even things out. I'm not going to go buy a car because it's my favorite color and the exact model I want but has been keyed from one bumper to the next.
As for PC requirements. I'm running WoW on a five year old computer and I only lag in Dalaran. Most people upgrade after a while and with us returning to our major cities the lag will be to a minimum if any compared to Dalaran.
The character models are an eye sore when put into the beautiful scenery in WoW.
Reply
1-19-2010 @ 9:40AM
JBluntz said...
Another counterpoint to the argument of PC requirements limiting the audience is the high level of customization available in the video settings; you can pick and choose whether spell detail or view distance is more important to you and set levels of rendering within the capabilities of your computer. Unless I'm missing something, I fail to see why the same system couldn't be applied to character models...
Then again, if it means that creating armor models is more difficult or time consuming and results in fewer variations than the already slim pickings, then I'll stick with what we've got. My shaman is sick of looking like a huntard just because I got a shoulder or helm drop that's better than my tier piece... :P
1-19-2010 @ 9:44AM
Terethall said...
The thing is that you could always make the character model updates an optional graphical feature. Just like weather and spell effects, people could revert back to the old models if their computers couldn't handle the new ones.