Aldo wrote: »
Thinking about old skool WoW instances...worst instance
Joshmvii wrote: »
Is that Uldaman? If so, you're out of your mind. Uldaman is awesome.
bowen wrote: »
It was a maze, but a lot less of a maze than WC, it pretty much always brought you back to one point.
reVerse wrote: »
Wasn't the original level curve for Uldaman something like it started in the 30s and then Archaedas was like level 45 or something?
Humphrey Bogart wrote:
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
Echo wrote: »
Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
Psycho Internet Hawk wrote: »
Arch I like that no matter what game you're playing, your playstyle inevitably revolves around bugs and monsters and generally ugly things.
EWom wrote: »
Someone needs to tell the artists at NCSoft that there are in fact breasts smaller than a C-Cup. It seems in their games, that's the smallest breast size you can get.
Arthil wrote: »
Adunal, my newly made Chosen.
MyDcmbr wrote: »
And a Fat Old Bastard Enforcer
Lucky Cynic wrote: »
No amount of DX11 will help with relatively low resolution textures and very simply character models. I've seen plenty of games that are still technically in the DX9 era of graphics engines yet still look excellent because the models maintained the right level of polygons and the textures were never too low to begin with.
I'm not saying DDO and LOTRO have poor visuals, but DX11 and other lovely tech will not fix what makes Turbine's games look a bit dated.
Scosglen wrote: »
If EQ2 can pull themselves up by their bootstraps maybe the influx of cash from the F2P switch will give them some spark to boost their art department.
slurpeepoop wrote: »
EQ2 went f2p?
I'm checking that out!