That is one of the most tortuous definitions of quality I have seen in my life.
Ghavrel Send a noteboard - 13/09/2010 06:11:59 AM
The minimum system requirements are a good measure, but I would use them exactly opposite of the way you do. WoW's graphics win in that category over most modern games because they are able to function with fewer restrictions. They do more with less.
No, they do crap with less. They don't do more than anything.
Pong does not have better graphics than WoW. WoW does not have better graphics than Mass Effect 2. You're using better in two different ways and thereby conflating "better" quality with "better" value; the two are entirely different concepts.
A $2000 computer likely has more quality than a $300 one. Now, if a person can't reasonably afford that computer or doesn't need the additional quality that it has, the $300 is a better value. But that doesn't mean that the $2000 computer is of a lesser quality. When you say the $300 computer is a "better purchase" for a typical user, you're making a value judgment, not a judgment based on quality. Apples and oranges.
"We feel safe when we read what we recognise, what does not challenge our way of thinking.... a steady acceptance of pre-arranged patterns leads to the inability to question what we are told."
~Camilla
Ghavrel is Ghavrel is Ghavrel
*MySmiley*
~Camilla
Ghavrel is Ghavrel is Ghavrel
*MySmiley*
This message last edited by Ghavrel on 13/09/2010 at 06:12:19 AM
So...how long before we can play WOW on our phones?
11/09/2010 06:25:28 AM
- 886 Views
Given how crappy the graphics are, I'd say it's a data issue.
11/09/2010 09:19:04 AM
- 724 Views
the wow graphics are far from bad
12/09/2010 06:12:15 AM
- 613 Views
"Bad" is subjective. By any modern technical standard, however, they are inferior.
12/09/2010 07:28:34 AM
- 698 Views
They're definitely antiquated, but from a business sense, doing so makes a ton of sense
12/09/2010 09:03:36 AM
- 791 Views
Oh I understand.
12/09/2010 05:02:26 PM
- 615 Views
they really aren't bad
12/09/2010 06:11:48 PM
- 598 Views
You guys are not actually disagreeing. Aemon realizes this, but I'm not sure LL does
12/09/2010 06:35:09 PM
- 663 Views
no, i'm also saying that from a technical standpoint they are not BAD
12/09/2010 09:24:09 PM
- 696 Views
Baldur's Gate came out in 1998. You know what that means, right?
12/09/2010 10:08:49 PM
- 664 Views
It all depends on what criteria you're using
13/09/2010 01:56:37 AM
- 626 Views
I know, and I said as much. Several times.
13/09/2010 05:17:14 AM
- 615 Views
Re: I know, and I said as much. Several times.
13/09/2010 05:54:12 AM
- 672 Views
That is one of the most tortuous definitions of quality I have seen in my life.
13/09/2010 06:11:59 AM
- 670 Views
Re: That is one of the most tortuous definitions of quality I have seen in my life.
13/09/2010 08:59:33 AM
- 611 Views
This is a meaningless conversation.
13/09/2010 06:30:07 PM
- 591 Views
Your post + Dr. Pepper + front row of serious computer security class = dangerous situation. *NM*
13/09/2010 07:28:34 PM
- 286 Views
below modern standards doesn't mean "bad"
13/09/2010 04:16:41 AM
- 617 Views
You're a fucking idiot.
13/09/2010 09:00:28 PM
- 585 Views
I'm arguing for the fun of it is what I'm arguing about
13/09/2010 11:17:46 PM
- 640 Views
Please don't.
14/09/2010 02:20:33 AM
- 617 Views
that's fine wish you were a cmb admin *NM*
14/09/2010 03:35:19 AM
- 319 Views
Hm. I'd have to buy a lot more donuts if I worked over there. *NM*
14/09/2010 04:07:51 AM
- 302 Views
Haha, I'm just happy that what I said made any sense....I honestly don't remember posting that. *NM*
12/09/2010 06:31:52 PM
- 374 Views
I've noticed that MMO's that have tried to usurp WoW with superior graphics have failed.
12/09/2010 07:33:13 PM
- 640 Views
I agree, I was shocked that my netbook could run wow at acceptable settings
13/09/2010 05:21:44 AM
- 574 Views
Why would I want to? *NM*
13/09/2010 04:21:19 PM
- 310 Views