1.0 Voice and Skincolor

[Magic-Mal]

Adding a black skin option back? You get an unbiased +1 from me!

[Lambdafish]

Why are people repeating this myth so often?... At standard desktop graphics, my fps only improved by some 10% tops going into ARR from 1.x, and greater frequency of doodad-intensive areas often made the open world seem lower fps than 1.x's. If satisfied with a mere 30 fps I could play with better textures than in 1.x than in ARR.

No... the game was extremely unoptimised

[Kathryn]

Do you perhaps own a NASA space computer? Cause that would be the only way to run it.

You did NOT need a nasa computer to run 1.0 it really WASN'T that hard to run hell I ran it and STREAMED the game just fine, 1.0 certainly was a beautiful game, but so is 2.0 onwards in it's own way.

[Luluna]

I miss that voice

Have to agree the game just looked so much nicer...looking back ARR just lacks that atmosphere Version 1 had. It ran OK for me at the time.

[Atreyu]

I honestly wish we could just use a color wheel for everything rather than a limited option color palate.

Even if the color-wheel was limited based on race/tribe/what is already available, I am terribly pickiy about color and I often find myself flip-flopping between two different ones because one is too dark, but one step below is too light... or it changes hue slightly or something like that.

This is most apparent (to me) in selecting hair color :l *grumble*

[Shurrikhan]

No... the game was extremely unoptimised

Unoptomized or not, I found little to no FPS increase on my same hard-ware going from 1.0 to ARR under the same settings, and over the transition many of the shaders came to look poorer, characters lower poly, and certain textures poorer resolution.

Any what does that picture have to with anything? IF that example were representative (it is not, as the slide was pointing out examples of badly misplaced development time into awkwardly perfectionist personally dev-crafted items, etc., not optimization), then that just means 1.0 bogged the computer a whole lot less per line of shader code than its replacement ARR.

[Lambdafish]

snip

Its not actually the specifics of the picture that are important (though the example is kinda embarressing on the 1.0 devs), rather the entire talk at GDC was Yoshi P talking about how Yoshi P was poorly built and caused problems for a lot of players, and how this would be remedied in 2.0.

Also, thats not how shaders work, or coding in general for that matter (how much it bogs down the computer per line of code is irrelevant), there is no argument to the benefit of 1.0s graphics functionally, only that it was very pretty.

[Anyan]

You have my support. I also wish we could get a color wheel but apparently better CC is on the bottom of the list.
That music is nice too. I wish they'd add that to the existing ones to change things up a bit. Is it just the video, or my ears playing tricks on me but doesn't the sounds like the footsteps we hear sound better somehow?

[Shurrikhan]

Its not actually the specifics of the picture that are important (though the example is kinda embarressing on the 1.0 devs), rather the entire talk at GDC was Yoshi P talking about how Yoshi P* was poorly built and caused problems for a lot of players, and how this would be remedied in 2.0.

Also, thats not how shaders work, or coding in general for that matter (how much it bogs down the computer per line of code is irrelevant), there is no argument to the benefit of 1.0s graphics functionally, only that it was very pretty.

*Heh, that typo.

I wasn't claiming that more shader codes made... shading... better? in 1.0., only that in general, the way 1.0 did shadows looked prettier to me than the way ARR+ does them (similar story for skin tones, or certain weather effects). (Alternatively, I like the way ARR does glare in desert zones far better than the way 1.x did them, and most of the spell animations had at least some improvement, just in my opinion.)

Nor was I claiming that Crystal Tools was by any means more efficient. I was only pointing out that the allegedly massive disparity between Crystal Tools and Luminous performance within their respective iterations varies between hyperbole and outright myth, and can sometimes feel downright like propaganda.

(Now maybe it's just that one was more GPU vs. CPU intensive, and the limiting component of the two simply swapped, hence the little to no change in performance, but most legacy players I've played with reported the same—minimal fps increases, with similar bogging due primarily to dense geometric shadows, object count, and player count.)

[alimdia]

I'd trade miqo'te voice 5 for that.

Which one is voice 5? Oh you know, that one, the one that stands out in combat that sounds like a mouse being strangled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hhPOXv9PFQ