Why are people against graphical updates?

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
162

It’s pretty important to me. :wink:

163

Fair, I guess. Still, it’s not a gameplay change, and I’d argue that gameplay is more important.

164

Because old 2004 graphics are part of the experience.

“New” is not always objectively better than “old”.

As an example, take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJosaT1sCfs

Specifically at 1:58. Adding more detail and making fancier-looking graphics is not always better-looking.

165

Sure, that’s why I’m just hoping it’s the same as in demo since I liked it very much.

166

  1. “Better graphics are better” is a tautology. “Higher-polycount/texture rez graphics are better” is debatable. Some people might prefer the art style of the old graphics. Some people might find the low-rez nature itself nostalgic and charming. A photorealistic Super Mario Brothers would certainly not be objectively better.

  2. Gameplay and graphics aren’t the two easily separable things people make them out to be. A game’s interface is a core part of the interaction between the player and the game. Things like how busy the graphics are (and thus how easy it is to parse the information on the screen) are directly relevant to gameplay. A new lighting system that made parts of the game too dark to see would affect gameplay. Character models and animations being more distinct affects gameplay.

  3. In large part, people just don’t trust Blizzard not to fall down a slippery slope. “Hey, let’s just update the graphics a bit. And while we’re at it, let’s add in some of the UI improvements. And, hey, let’s thrown in an LFD while we’re at it. That’s just part of the UI.”

1 Like
167

“Slippery slope” is ENTIRELY why I don’t want them adding expansions, either.

1 Like
168

The only slope they can really fall down with adding expansions is adding all of them, which more or less just results in the later expansions not having a lot of players.

Adding TBC and WotLK server isn’t even a first step towards changing Classic.

169

Considering Classic’s been in demand since TBC… I’d say it is.

We’ll literally be back at square one if they start tacking expansions on, and I don’t trust them to keep them separate.

1 Like
170

I wouldnt worry to much about it for a couple of years if at all.
By then people might be getting bored and start qq’ing for tbc

171

Opening up a TBC server that is completely separate from the Classic servers isn’t a change to the Classic servers, though.

The fact that a lot of us don’t trust Blizzard doesn’t change the fact that having other expansions is not inherently a change to Classic.

It also provides a place for the people who keep bugging Blizzard to change Classic class design to be more like TBC or WotLK, rather than on the forums asking Blizzard to change Classic.

1 Like
172

Except that it isn’t. No changes means nothing should be in Classic that wasn’t in vanilla. It’s very straightforward and easy to understand. The definition of it does not change based on someone’s opinion. And it doesn’t change based on what Blizzard decides to add.

1 Like
173

BFAs graphics, models and animations aren’t bad, to me personally graphics aren’t all too important but at least I have standards, too old of graphics I don’t want to touch say, RE2 on PS1 or even earlier graphics. But to me animations are a bit more important, If classic animations can be improved overall that’d be fine.

174

There have already been changes, and “classic” was updated all the time. That means changed. And we’ve already seen changes. Do you think classic should be what it was on day one? No patches, no changes from day one it was released, like a static game on a disc? Ps1 days? No changes could be from 1.0 - 1.12 and there were a lot of changes in that time. You’re basically meeting in the middle with changes and saying no changes from what they’ve already changed. You should really be saying to keep the core of classic and expect stuff to change because it’s going to, clearly. We have already seen changes. This isn’t vanilla and we will NEVER have a vanilla experience again. This is classic.

175

Yes. Good job. You’ve correctly defined no changes. :+1:

Although really it would be 1.1-1.12. But close enough.

176

So you’re saying if they made the server at 1.12 and then changed it to earlier or vice versa it would still be no changes? 1.12 av is no changes because it’s in 1.12 or would original av be the no changes you seek? But you can’t really say that now since you clearly believe 1.12 is still no changes even though av is drastically different.

What you’re asking for is the vanilla experience of both you and the developer going through everything together for the first time. The experience of going through 1.0-1.12 with you and the developers. This experience will never be replicated and we need to stop asking for it. You guys are asking for a static game and that’s not “ no changes” or vanilla. Never will be.

177

If classic has been in demand since tbc, releasing tbc servers won’t affect that.

178

1.12 AV is between 1.1 and 1.12. So it qualifies as “no changes”. The debates on which version of AV should be in Classic does not change the definition of “no changes”. The debates on what should be in Classic should have always been limited to what is between 1.1 and 1.12. But the endless waves of trolls and generally clueless people unfortunately prevented much of that discussion.

Well I don’t think anyone has ever expected them to go backwards. That would be silly.

You seem to be confused. Nobody is asking for a carbon copy of all the patch cycles on a precise timeline. That’s not what no changes is.

I’ll say it again. “No changes” simply means that nothing should be introduced into Classic that was never in vanilla. That’s all that it means. It doesn’t mean anything other than that.

No changes just means no gameplay features outside the bounds of 1.1 and 1.12 should be up for discussion. That means things like transmog, LFR and flying mounts are out of the question.

That’s all it means. It has nothing to do with specific patch cycles. That’s a whole different discussion.

179

Obviously if they went backwards that would be silly… that’s why I said vice versa. It was a point. And you clearly missed my point in which everyone has a different view of what “no changes” should be. 1.12 av is a huge change and shouldn’t be in classic. Of course that’s my opinion, and many “no changes” persons will agree.

180

I would really like to see a poll asking people the following.

" Would you like to see new models/effects in classic WoW"

  1. Yes! It’s the gameplay that makes classic not the models.
  2. Only with a toggle. Sometimes I want to feel nostalgic.
  3. No way! I want Classic to be exactly like Vanilla.
181

No, they don’t. They have a different view of what should be in Classic, but it’s all still consistent with no changes. Nobody is seriously debating transmog or LFR anymore, which is all “no changes” was ever opposed to.

Again you’re failing to understand the very basic concept of “no changes”. Two people can disagree about specifics on AV but still agree on “no changes”.