RPK! Guild Interview

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hayasa

New member
Aug 26, 2020
26
22
3
The last I remember of him, he was still saying (for the umpteenth time) that there was no such thing as MO2. I wonder if he's been in the Beta— and, if he has, how he deals with the cognitive dissonance of disbelieving it exists.
Pretty sure he hasn’t been around in the MO community for a very long time, prior to MO2 talks. So please stop making up things about other people. And stop being upset that Manflayer was part of the original AI, back when AI used to be something in MO, No offence to some of the good people of AI, but you make their Legacy look poor.
 

Valoran

Well-known member
May 28, 2020
333
411
63
God MO1 looks like dogshit lol
Although it's obviously a lot worse in many areas, it has always annoyed me how almost every single video or even screenshot of MO1 is on the lowest possible settings, making it look 10 years older than it actually was.

There are some really nice looking areas in MO1 even today, and some models and textures aren't that bad either when you actually turn the graphics on.
 

Hayasa

New member
Aug 26, 2020
26
22
3
Although it's obviously a lot worse in many areas, it has always annoyed me how almost every single video or even screenshot of MO1 is on the lowest possible settings, making it look 10 years older than it actually was.

There are some really nice looking areas in MO1 even today, and some models and textures aren't that bad either when you actually turn the graphics on.
Graphics must always be on lowest settings to have a pvp edge
 

Valoran

Well-known member
May 28, 2020
333
411
63
Graphics must always be on lowest settings to have a pvp edge
Not if you can run the game at the games cap of 120 fps with the highest settings.

It just so happens that most people who were playing MO1 had toaster PCs, but nonetheless it made almost all media of the game look far worse than it could have, leading people to think it just looked like a PS2 game.
 
Last edited:

Hayasa

New member
Aug 26, 2020
26
22
3
Not if you can run the game at games cap of 120 fps with the highest settings.

It just so happens that most people who were playing MO1 had toaster PCs, but nonetheless it made almost all media of the game look far worse than it could have, leading people to think it just looked like a PS2 game.
Foliage didn't render in until you got close, allowing you to see people at a distance hiding in bushes and such... I ran the game on medium after they did some optimization. I didn't like how all the videos looked on low, medium was ok.
 

ThaBadMan

Well-known member
May 28, 2020
1,113
862
113
31
Norway
Not if you can run the game at the games cap of 120 fps with the highest settings.

It just so happens that most people who were playing MO1 had toaster PCs, but nonetheless it made almost all media of the game look far worse than it could have, leading people to think it just looked like a PS2 game.
Not really. Many had very good PCs for the time but all who wanted to perform in combat ran the game at lowest settings and often lower then preferable res, and that was only because thats the only way you could guarrantee highest possible FPS during combat. 40 man fights and above had a crazy decrease in stability and FPS.

I could have played MO with highest settings and a near constant 60 fps but that would make me perform horribly in combat so I put everything on lowest and lower res and would have mostly 100+ fps in below 50 man fights.

So to players who wanted quality results and not be hindered by the games terrible optimizations no matter how good computer you had you where forced into lowest graphics and lower then native resolution. It was that simple.

When you could run any of the newest graphical beast games at the time on highest settings with max fps and then run MO on lowest in a medium fight and not have stable 60 fps even you learned where the problem was.
So please dont defend MO and blame computers of the times, computers was more then good enough, but MOs quality was the exact opposite.
 

Putzin

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2020
320
418
63
Not really. Many had very good PCs for the time but all who wanted to perform in combat ran the game at lowest settings and often lower then preferable res, and that was only because thats the only way you could guarrantee highest possible FPS during combat. 40 man fights and above had a crazy decrease in stability and FPS.

I could have played MO with highest settings and a near constant 60 fps but that would make me perform horribly in combat so I put everything on lowest and lower res and would have mostly 100+ fps in below 50 man fights.

So to players who wanted quality results and not be hindered by the games terrible optimizations no matter how good computer you had you where forced into lowest graphics and lower then native resolution. It was that simple.

When you could run any of the newest graphical beast games at the time on highest settings with max fps and then run MO on lowest in a medium fight and not have stable 60 fps even you learned where the problem was.
So please dont defend MO and blame computers of the times, computers was more then good enough, but MOs quality was the exact opposite.
We're already seeing a similar pattern now most of the map is terribly optimized its only beta but I hope it gets fixed soon especially considering how many will play at launch
 
Status
Not open for further replies.