24 Jun 10, 06:15PM
"Every game has it" - this is simply wrong. Every old-fashioned, unrealistic game has it - the more you move towards a simulation-fps ("tactical") the less you see them.
We used to favour the game as an old-school fps, so brightskins we're a thing of "of course, why not" - but many players seem to disagree, or see the game in a diffrent angle. This does not mean we want to turn this into a tactical shooter, don't worry. Just want to know how the majority feels about this, hence this poll.
Besides, you can't even have "real" brightskins in AC (only "brighterskins"), because every skin is lit according to the map's lightning. Games that sport real brightskins usually display them with little or no regard to the ambience light, more like light or full glowmaps.
I highly doubt that changing to brightskins (very small texture size, usually) gives you such a huge fps advantage, kaz - unless you have a 8mb graphics card or something.
The limiter would still allow people to use small textures or custom colours (for the colourblind, red and blue are often a bad thing), they just won't be displayed overly bright.
The biggest problem is simply: Someone modding his skins/textures should not have an advantage that is not granted to players who just start playing and have not touched any media files (and probably don't even know about the possibilities to do so). This could be fixed by giving everyone the same options.
This also goes for world texture downscaling, wich could be allowed to go really low in the future (making low-res texture packs redundant and giving everyone the choice in the menus). Atm, I doubt many players are aware of the mild downscaling provided by the "texreduce" command...
We used to favour the game as an old-school fps, so brightskins we're a thing of "of course, why not" - but many players seem to disagree, or see the game in a diffrent angle. This does not mean we want to turn this into a tactical shooter, don't worry. Just want to know how the majority feels about this, hence this poll.
Besides, you can't even have "real" brightskins in AC (only "brighterskins"), because every skin is lit according to the map's lightning. Games that sport real brightskins usually display them with little or no regard to the ambience light, more like light or full glowmaps.
I highly doubt that changing to brightskins (very small texture size, usually) gives you such a huge fps advantage, kaz - unless you have a 8mb graphics card or something.
The limiter would still allow people to use small textures or custom colours (for the colourblind, red and blue are often a bad thing), they just won't be displayed overly bright.
The biggest problem is simply: Someone modding his skins/textures should not have an advantage that is not granted to players who just start playing and have not touched any media files (and probably don't even know about the possibilities to do so). This could be fixed by giving everyone the same options.
This also goes for world texture downscaling, wich could be allowed to go really low in the future (making low-res texture packs redundant and giving everyone the choice in the menus). Atm, I doubt many players are aware of the mild downscaling provided by the "texreduce" command...