Curse

Esan · May 11, 2008, 07:43 PM // 19:43

I think you should differentiate between the "client" and the network layer. The network code in GW is phenomenal because that is Anet's core competence.

The rest of the client, on the other hand, is nothing special. The UI is very rigid and uncustomizable (except using texture replacement hacks). The world is too simplistic, having just two degrees of freedom and often very broken pathfinding and collision detection. Graphics are shoddy and full of bugs and hacks -- why is it that after three years the major bug of creatures disappearing in the middle of bridges continues to be unfixed? Mob AI is next to nonexistent -- they never learn from their mistakes and never display intelligent behavior. All in all, the GW1 client is really showing its age.

-Pluto- · May 11, 2008, 09:46 PM // 21:46

They could still have the areas separated out like the instances in GW, but have them be persistent anyway. It would be like towns in GW currently are, but probably larger like any of the explorable areas, with mobs and whatever else they include. They wouldn't necessarily have a single large over-world which would require basically one big download.

Issac · May 11, 2008, 10:18 PM // 22:18

I agree with the fast updates and all, but when you have to reinstall after you have all 4 games on one account and have to load the places over again. Man that takes a good while.

Proff · May 11, 2008, 10:34 PM // 22:34

I was gonna try WoW a couple days ago and then saw how long it'd take to dl

Mr. G · May 11, 2008, 11:15 PM // 23:15

Quote:

Here in Europe? Here in Europe I have unlimited up/download, always had.
It's in the choice of provider and account type.

Ditto..............