burgingham wrote:Each world had its particular charme (except world 4, it sucked). I guess I would agree with world 1 though. Shows you that tons of new features don't necessarily make a game better.
Jackard wrote:burgingham wrote:Each world had its particular charme (except world 4, it sucked). I guess I would agree with world 1 though. Shows you that tons of new features don't necessarily make a game better.
The small size was the key.
If devs filled the underworld with more content and worked on claims/sieges more it would be interesting to try that again, maybe on a test server, although they would need to alter the resource system to fit.
SpiderJerusalem wrote:Im sad I wasn't around when nobody had nightvision and X-Ray.I imagine it funny when stealth was "hiding behind a tree"
Manson wrote:Only with less trees.
al wrote:My choice is world 3. It was dynamic, with exciting and clear geopolitics, more continuous and intensive trade relations. People were not afraid of playing style this game intended to be played - sand-box. There were creative ambitions all around and idea-driven undertakings. There were a lot of juicy updates.
The bad things about w3 were lags, abandoned villages, campfire construction signs everywhere and ugly deforestation.
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Claude [Bot] and 2 guests