I think graphics are like 98% artistic talent, 2% technological. A lot of games just use way more polygons than necessary, trying to compensate for thier lack of good artists. Especially MMOs, which require such big art teams. They might have one or two skilled artists, and a handfull of borderline passable artists. End result is a game that hogs a ridiculous amount of resources, without even looking like anything special.
So true
I mean. Look at Vanguard
Exactly as you said. It has some things that are greatly designed, and than you have other things that are so poorly designed you want to cry.
I am profesional designer myself - and one of the main advice i give to my peers is > Consistency !
A product that has some great looking parts and some bad looking ones,is far less professional than one that is average looking but
keeping the same quality all over.
So Vanguard manages - just as EQ2 previously did
To look both good and horrible - and in the same time have ridicilous system requirements.
And please who ever thought to make EQ2 built for the future should be fired and sued by Sony.
EQ2 first of all flopped exactly because of its system requirements. It was main contender of WOW if you remember , it taken the same time and much more $ to make. But WoW managed to win the tug of war BECAUSE OF ITS REALISTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS. And EQ2 lost at the beggining. And never recovered.
Built for the future...lol!
EQ2 finally reached playable state this year. So the future is here for it.
To bad - it is to late now.
Next time Sony ...build for now ...thats my advice
"Before this battle is over all the world will know that few...stood against many." - King Leonidas
EQ2 finally reached playable state this year. So the future is here for it.
To bad - it is to late now.
Overall nice reflection
I partly agree with you. But if you look at the MMO market today, until games like AoC and WAR come out at the end of this year (AoC was jut postponed to October earlier today), EQ2 still is one the very few best looking MMOs (if you can run it at max settings of course).
I think EQ2 is still a very good game. Of course it is different from other games like WOW. And of course, like any other game, it gets boring once you have continuously been through the game for some time. But the game play is still very strong and the game has evolved tremendously, and now also got some nice expansions.
Look at it. Where do you see the best graphics (as opposed to design, as design is a matter of personal taste; i.ex WOW's nice design is not the subject here) in the games that are available today? EQ2, Vanguard, EVE,... there aren't many. EQ2 still hasn't aged yet.
Of course, I also think that EQ2's design could have been better; its IMHO rather bland actually. But the point here is better graphics, not design.
Personally, if I have the choice between:
1. a game
2. the same game with better graphics, but it requires me to purchase new hardware to play it at max details.
... I will chose option 2 any day. But that's just me As for you , you can always run it at lower quality settings if you so chose.
Finally one more question for you: do you really believe that you will be able to run AoC and get it to look as good as the published screenshots/videos on your PC ?
As the years go by we need to go forward, don't you think so ?
Personally, if I have the choice between: 1. a game
2. the same game with better graphics, but it requires me to purchase new hardware to play it at max details. ... I will chose option 2 any day. But that's just me
Finally one more question for you: do you really believe that you will be able to run AoC and get it to look as good as the published screenshots/videos on your PC ?
As the years go by we need to go forward, don't you think so ?
Sure man
I will too chose choice 2.
If it would be THE game.
But ask yourself. Is there THE game?
The game that is so good , not only you are ready to dish 50$ and 15$ every month - but also 500$ + just to play it ?
If there is really such game , please tell me about it ! I really want to get my hands on it !
But in reallity there is just same ol' , with slight improvement and better graphics- thats the bottom line.
Make a game with great improvement - than make the graphic whatever you like ... even the one requireing great PC.
So far, there was no such MMO
And as for AOC , same ol'
It will probably not justify the need for hardware investment.
I will upgrade my PC for Crysis , cause i see it as new benchmark in PC Vista gaming.
And MMOs should follow these benchmarks,
They better start design GAMEPLAY FOR FUTURE , not graphic for future
"Before this battle is over all the world will know that few...stood against many." - King Leonidas
The game that is so good , not only you are ready to dish 50$ and 15$ every month - but also 500$ + just to play it ?
If there is really such game , please tell me about it ! I really want to get my hands on it !
But in reallity there is just same ol' , with slight improvement and better graphics- thats the bottom line.
Make a game with great improvement - than make the graphic whatever you like ... even the one requireing great PC.
So far, there was no such MMO
And as for AOC , same ol'
They better start design GAMEPLAY FOR FUTURE , not graphic for future
Hehehe, I agree.
As WAR and AoC will be coming out in about 10 months, it's a difficult choice today... as there isn't really much choice, regarding THE game as you say.
I'm still unsure about Vanguard, it's not THE game, but if you look at what we have today, Vanguard is the game that offers the most possibilities. Even with the actual shortcomings you can enjoy yourself ingame as there are so many things you can do.
I am still thinking about it, but I think I will subscribe to Vanguard within the next hours and start playing when it pre-releases later today... ... still unsure though... but I might do it
Personally, if I have the choice between: 1. a game
2. the same game with better graphics, but it requires me to purchase new hardware to play it at max details. ... I will chose option 2 any day. But that's just me
Finally one more question for you: do you really believe that you will be able to run AoC and get it to look as good as the published screenshots/videos on your PC ?
As the years go by we need to go forward, don't you think so ?
Sure man
I will too chose choice 2.
If it would be THE game.
But ask yourself. Is there THE game?
The game that is so good , not only you are ready to dish 50$ and 15$ every month - but also 500$ + just to play it ?
Geez those are not choices. How stupid is that question? Umm would you like to inherit $1 or $1 million dollars. Ummm I think I will just take the $1 because I dont want to be greedy. Who is that moronic, is what I want to know. How about making a real choice question, where the answer isnt completely obvious to 100% of the people?
The problem with the $500 upgrade analogy when it comes to pc games. Is that game is going to suck. The reason is because the company making the game is not getting the $500 investment for the new computer. Its not like Sony PS or Nintendo, where when they are launching a new system and developing an awesome game to launch it. They can afford to lose a little money on the game development to make an aswesome game because they know they will be picking up the $500 price on the system that will be needed for the game to play it on. Therefore the game development has the resources to put into making a great game.
When Vanguard launches they are still only getting the $50 + $15 per month yet they can only appeal to 1% of the customers. Which means a very small budget.
EQ2 first of all flopped exactly because of its system requirements. It was main contender of WOW if you remember , it taken the same time and much more $ to make. But WoW managed to win the tug of war BECAUSE OF ITS REALISTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS. And EQ2 lost at the beggining. And never recovered.
Built for the future...lol!
EQ2 finally reached playable state this year. So the future is here for it.
To bad - it is to late now.
Next time Sony ...build for now ...thats my advice
I dont agree with this EQ2 being playable this year. I dont see 5mil of WoW's 10mil subs having a system that can play EQ2 well. This means EQ2 game is still too good for the average customer. If you want to appeal to 10% or 20% of the available customers then you better make sure you are getting all 10% - 20% of the market. Because if you cant then your piece of the pie is severly limited. With EQ2 still not able to be played by a majority of people, means after 2yrs of release its still has its sales suffereing. By the time this game actually appeals to 70% of the available customers its going to be sooo outdated game wise that its potential customers will not even give it a glance.
Comments
I mean. Look at Vanguard
Exactly as you said. It has some things that are greatly designed, and than you have other things that are so poorly designed you want to cry.
I am profesional designer myself - and one of the main advice i give to my peers is > Consistency !
A product that has some great looking parts and some bad looking ones,is far less professional than one that is average looking but
keeping the same quality all over.
So Vanguard manages - just as EQ2 previously did
To look both good and horrible - and in the same time have ridicilous system requirements.
And please who ever thought to make EQ2 built for the future should be fired and sued by Sony.
EQ2 first of all flopped exactly because of its system requirements. It was main contender of WOW if you remember , it taken the same time and much more $ to make. But WoW managed to win the tug of war BECAUSE OF ITS REALISTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS. And EQ2 lost at the beggining. And never recovered.
Built for the future...lol!
EQ2 finally reached playable state this year. So the future is here for it.
To bad - it is to late now.
Next time Sony ...build for now ...thats my advice
"Before this battle is over all the world will know that few...stood against many." - King Leonidas
Overall nice reflectionI partly agree with you. But if you look at the MMO market today, until games like AoC and WAR come out at the end of this year (AoC was jut postponed to October earlier today), EQ2 still is one the very few best looking MMOs (if you can run it at max settings of course).
I think EQ2 is still a very good game. Of course it is different from other games like WOW. And of course, like any other game, it gets boring once you have continuously been through the game for some time. But the game play is still very strong and the game has evolved tremendously, and now also got some nice expansions.
Look at it. Where do you see the best graphics (as opposed to design, as design is a matter of personal taste; i.ex WOW's nice design is not the subject here) in the games that are available today? EQ2, Vanguard, EVE,... there aren't many. EQ2 still hasn't aged yet.
Of course, I also think that EQ2's design could have been better; its IMHO rather bland actually. But the point here is better graphics, not design.
Personally, if I have the choice between:
1. a game
2. the same game with better graphics, but it requires me to purchase new hardware to play it at max details.
... I will chose option 2 any day. But that's just me
As for you , you can always run it at lower quality settings if you so chose.
Finally one more question for you: do you really believe that you will be able to run AoC and get it to look as good as the published screenshots/videos on your PC ?
As the years go by we need to go forward, don't you think so ?
I will too chose choice 2.
If it would be THE game.
But ask yourself. Is there THE game?
The game that is so good , not only you are ready to dish 50$ and 15$ every month - but also 500$ + just to play it ?
If there is really such game , please tell me about it ! I really want to get my hands on it !
But in reallity there is just same ol' , with slight improvement and better graphics- thats the bottom line.
Make a game with great improvement - than make the graphic whatever you like ... even the one requireing great PC.
So far, there was no such MMO
And as for AOC , same ol'
It will probably not justify the need for hardware investment.
I will upgrade my PC for Crysis , cause i see it as new benchmark in PC Vista gaming.
And MMOs should follow these benchmarks,
They better start design GAMEPLAY FOR FUTURE , not graphic for future
"Before this battle is over all the world will know that few...stood against many." - King Leonidas
As WAR and AoC will be coming out in about 10 months, it's a difficult choice today... as there isn't really much choice, regarding THE game as you say.
I'm still unsure about Vanguard, it's not THE game, but if you look at what we have today, Vanguard is the game that offers the most possibilities. Even with the actual shortcomings you can enjoy yourself ingame as there are so many things you can do.
I am still thinking about it, but I think I will subscribe to Vanguard within the next hours and start playing when it pre-releases later today... ... still unsure though... but I might do it
I will too chose choice 2.
If it would be THE game.
But ask yourself. Is there THE game?
The game that is so good , not only you are ready to dish 50$ and 15$ every month - but also 500$ + just to play it ?
Geez those are not choices. How stupid is that question? Umm would you like to inherit $1 or $1 million dollars. Ummm I think I will just take the $1 because I dont want to be greedy. Who is that moronic, is what I want to know. How about making a real choice question, where the answer isnt completely obvious to 100% of the people?
The problem with the $500 upgrade analogy when it comes to pc games. Is that game is going to suck. The reason is because the company making the game is not getting the $500 investment for the new computer. Its not like Sony PS or Nintendo, where when they are launching a new system and developing an awesome game to launch it. They can afford to lose a little money on the game development to make an aswesome game because they know they will be picking up the $500 price on the system that will be needed for the game to play it on. Therefore the game development has the resources to put into making a great game.
When Vanguard launches they are still only getting the $50 + $15 per month yet they can only appeal to 1% of the customers. Which means a very small budget.