Talking about Pixar and the look of their work, I would say that my favorite work of theirs is "The Incredibles" which emulates traditional 2D exaggerated animation. One of the reasons that a large number of people prefer the exaggerated style is because of the Uncanny Valley. Hard thing to some up, so check out the link.
Make no mistake graphics aside, WOW is a quality title. However I'm sorry, I don't buy the excuses for graphic mediocrity in 2007.
If we're going to demand the best from devs & publishers (polished titles with minimal bugs that run well) that includes all phases of the title.
Yes Billy..... graphics are included as well...Now before someone pulls the tired artistic, stylized card don't bother.
A) Yes I can read it now, the first excuse is going to be that WOW requires limited resources to run.. Ok, but may also I remind you games like Granado Espada & LOTRO deliver quality, artistic styled graphics without having to buy a super computer as well?.
Next excuse will be WOW's age (2004)..*sigh* might I also remind you Lineage II, & Guild Wars were released around that time and STILL hold up graphicaly today. In fact i've yet to see a title surpass L2 in the armor department.
So....while I agree the style graphics you're partial to is matter of taste graphical quality is not, especially in 2007.. Regardless if you're favorite car is a Mustang, the Lamborghini is a superior automobile....period.
There MANY areas WOW shines however in 2007 graphics aren't one of them.
Talking about Pixar and the look of their work, I would say that my favorite work of theirs is "The Incredibles" which emulates traditional 2D exaggerated animation. One of the reasons that a large number of people prefer the exaggerated style is because of the Uncanny Valley. Hard thing to some up, so check out the link.
That was actually a very interesting read... thanks for the link.
This particular topic always makes me feel dejected because it reminds me of how far away we are from having virtual reality MMOGs.
I would replace "far away" with "progessed past".
Virtual reality was a grand concept that failed miserably. The games never felt any more real than putting on a bike helmet, closing your eyes, and pretending.
Once I took a "virtual reality" tour of the human digestive system. It looked a lot like Starfox for the SNES. Virtual Reality is a future technology...we haven't had the computational power to make it work properly until now.
Virtual Reality a miserable failure? lol...it's obvious that you don't know anything about the subject; there isn't a vehicle of any kind on earth that has been designed, built, and tested without the use of Virtual Reality; most of the drugs that are entering the market today would not even exist were it not for VR; every oil and natural gas company on earth uses VR to not only find new reserves but also to design new and better drilling equipment and methods; the US military is hot as hell for VR and is pouring millions into it's development every year; hundreds of millions of $$ are being spent by corporations and academia world wide on VR research and development every year; and the list goes on and on...
We'll probably see the first VR single player games on the PS4 around the year 2012...and the first VR MMOGs won't happen 'til 2018 or so.
I might also point something out. When you start a franchise it is important to make characters and places which are iconic. Basically forging your own world for players to become immersed in.
When you create a giantic world with forest after forest, encampment after encampment, desert after desert you lose a sense of direction. When you try and create "realistic" character models you end up becoming streamlined with every other game currently striving for the next chunk of the pie.
Instead of following suit WoW stuck with the franchise it had forged. The character models and areas, although largely borrowed from the Warhammer world (another debate here I'm sure) are not only iconic, but all mesh together to form a world players are familiar with.
When Vanguard launched I was worried about the exact rants I read. Players didn't really become entranced by the "good graphics", but moreso bombarded with high system reqs, large empty areas, and confusing gameplay. The "Ooo and Ahh" died after a short while because it didn't feel like a "Vanguard world", but moreso an EQ3 or any other "updated" game.
WoW, although lacking in certain areas, has their iconic imagery down solid. There is no other game which has such an array of interesting looking races, voices, and cities. Everything else just tries to build the most "realistic" house and they all end up looking like the cardboard set pieces from a Western.
Give me one game besides World of Warcraft which has set itself up with a world that isn't just an "updated" copy of other game worlds which have no real guts.
(Besides Warhammer, since it isn't out yet.)
I mean, come on!
(Conversation from a Vanguard Dev Meeting)
Dev 1: We need a new race!
Dev2: Well, we have a cat guy, a goblin guy, an orc guy
Dev1: Dude. FOX GUY!
Dev2: Score!
Dev1: Yeah, we can just pull the wolf model up, chop the head off, resize it, BAM FOX GUY!
Dev2: I feel like doing a barrel roll already!
Dev1: Mission Accomplished!
Lol that's the funniest thing I've read all day
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
WOW is cartoony to me because of the bright colors, lack of detail in the anatomy (irises), lack of 3D work in the clothing, abundance of low-polygons (at least it looks that way) seen as straight liens.
How do you get great electricity and internet in the desert? Saying you live in a (huge) country with a desert, and therefore you know how it looks, is like saying you live in a country with weather, so you're an expert at how a category 4 hurricane looks. Next time, skip the "I know because..." section. Thanks to the internet, we're all howthedesertREALLYlooks experts.
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
Art in general is so subjective..and i can appreciate many styles. But in terms of video games, the graphics is usually the low end on my list of priorities when i look for something to play. However, I do love games that do take the time to make a distinctive visual
statement, Final Fantasy comes to my mind.
I actually like WoW's graphics, sure its not "high-end" super-hyper realistic, but so what. There are a bunch of games like
that...none of which I care to play. Im one of those players who like to be immersed. I prefer that the graphics be consistant
Make no mistake graphics aside, WOW is a quality title. However I'm sorry, I don't buy the excuses for graphic mediocrity in 2007.
If we're going to demand the best from devs & publishers (polished titles with minimal bugs that run well) that includes all phases of the title.
I disagree that WoW is a quality title... at least for my playstyle. It's too easy, and it's cheesy. I do agree, however, that demanding excellent games requires focus on all areas of development.
Originally posted by Zarraa
Yes Billy..... graphics are included as well...Now before someone pulls the tired artistic, stylized card don't bother.
A) Yes I can read it now, the first excuse is going to be that WOW requires limited resources to run.. Ok, but may also I remind you games like Granado Espada & LOTRO deliver quality, artistic styled graphics without having to buy a super computer as well?.
I haven't played Granado Espada, and I haven't fired up the "World Tour" for LoTR yet (will when I get home from work), so I cannot comment on how well those titles run or how they look. I can, however, comment on WoW. WoW does not require much in the hardware department to run well. It is mainly because the game was designed with a dramatically low polygon count, which in my opinion hurts the visual appeal of the game.
Originally posted by Zarraa
Next excuse will be WOW's age (2004)..*sigh* might I also remind you Lineage II, & Guild Wars were released around that time and STILL hold up graphicaly today. In fact i've yet to see a title surpass L2 in the armor department.
I played EQ2 after I beta tested WoW. EQ2 was no where near as lag-free as WoW, but I played it anyway because the graphics weren't as cheesy. Keep in mind, my opinion that WoW is cheesy is simply my opinion. I am not speaking for anyone but me.
Originally posted by Zarraa
So....while I agree the style graphics you're partial to is matter of taste graphical quality is not, especially in 2007.. Regardless if you're favorite car is a Mustang, the Lamborghini is a superior automobile....period.
There MANY areas WOW shines however in 2007 graphics aren't one of them.
Graphical style AND quality go hand in hand for me. I won't care about the style if the quality sucks. I want the best of both worlds... I want a more realistic style in high quality. I am not looking for complete realism, but I am looking for a more believable style done very well.
As for cars, I don't like either model you listed. I would much rather have one of THESE, than either one of those.
I think they've done a really lazy job on the character and equipment design with WoW personally, clothes are mainly just textured over rather than actually modelling so that they move realistically like I've seen in some games and even films (Shrek 2 for instance) I'm sick of this 'iconic' idea that developers are obsessing over, what they don't seem to realize is that these days most players want originality, Iconic has nothing to do with that, if you spend all that time on just a couple of portions of a game to make it stand out from the rest of the stuff then it'll just look awkward, I love cartoony graphics when they're done right, Rose does actually look like a good game to me because they obviously took time on the game instead of being lazy with it, Flyff is also similar in style. I personally think making up excuses for a crappy look in graphics is just stupid and I've decided to never buy a game with developers who do that, look at Vanguard, they constantly brag about how realistic their graphics are but when I looked at the screenshots it literally screamed "EQ1 updated graphics engine!" at me. For those of you who didn't know, this was a new game engine that SOE brought in ages ago so that the graphics would be more up to date with the other games, the old school gamers will probably know what I'm talking about.
A prime example of 'cartoony' graphics would be in anime, now I don't know about you, but I watch anime quite a lot these days simply because it's a lot more original than the stuff they have on t.v but the amount of detail they put into some of the characters on the good anime is fantastic and keep in mind this is probably all done pencil and paper or on a tablet (electronic drawing) I've seen a few 3D scenes as well, a good example of this would be Full Metal Panic, a huge submarine they had in that series was all done in 3D even the missiles that were fired, It was just great to see that kind of blend and they didn't do a lazy job of it.
Sometimes I think that developers and some gamers see cartoony as 'bad' no, cartoony can be good when done right, if graphics are crap they are simply just that, crap, it doesn't matter how many polygons there are or how smooth and shiny it looks, it depends on the amount of work that's been put into it.
Quoting people doesn't make you clever, in fact, it makes you all the more stupid for not bothering to read the quotes you post in the first place.
Sometimes I think that developers and some gamers see cartoony as 'bad' no, cartoony can be good when done right, if graphics are crap they are simply just that, crap, it doesn't matter how many polygons there are or how smooth and shiny it looks, it depends on the amount of work that's been put into it.
The number of polygons directly relates to how well the game performs and how nice it looks. Polygon count is a major... major... major concern in game design. And the smooth & shiny is very important as well. If it looks like a dirty ass, people aren't going to want to touch it.
The amount of work is definitely important... but it has to be quality work
Very true, but I have to say, I have seen some really good low polygon work before, Final Fantasy 12 is a prime example, they've managed to get proper facial animations done in that game too, I quit like low polygon work when it's done right, it's just if it's obvious that they've done a lazy job of it that it annoys me :P
Quoting people doesn't make you clever, in fact, it makes you all the more stupid for not bothering to read the quotes you post in the first place.
I hear alot of people on these forums talk about mmorpgs and cartoon graphics. These statements are usually thrown at games like WoW and LotRO, even at WAR. I honestly fail to see how these game's graphics resemble a cartoon at all. In WoW's case. The graphics are based on the art of the game and resemble WC3 closely. They arn't chock full of polygons, but they are bright, inspiring, colourful and they look great on average computer systems. Not once did I ever think to myself that this game looks like a cartoon. What did come to mind was the fact that the game looked like a world of warcraft. It was very colourful, and very fantasy like. I then take a gaze upon the so-called realistic looking games such as VG and EQ2. What do I see? I will use VG as an example. I see alot of colours, washed out looking colours. I see plastic models that seem to gleam like they were dipped in too much polish. I see bland looking lands, deserts that are dark looking and uncolourful. Have you ever seen a desert in real life? The majority of my country is full of it (Australia). The sand is bright and warm, it's textures range from gold to yellow to a crisp brown. It looks amazing. Deserts are not supposed to look boring, dark, or anything in between. I find alot more things in these so-called realistic games unrealistic than I do in the 'cartoon looking' games. I am very aware graphics are a matter of preference. But when someone says to me my statements hold zero credit because I think VG looks no more realistic than WoW. I tend to think that particular person has their head in a place where it shouldn't be. Thank you for reading. Please post and tell me what you think about the subject. PS. This wasn't a hate thread, just a simple observation of my own eyes.
I prefer the looks of EQII and Vanguard to that of WoW.
WoW looks to much like a cartoon to me. At first I disliked the WAR look as well, because it also looks somewhat cartoony, but it's grown on me. WAR is a little bit grittier, and more pleasing to the eye than the bright WOW graphics, at least IMO.
"Cartoon" looking may or may not be accurate when describing WoW, but it's an easy way to describe why I, and many others, don't like WoW grapics. "Realistic" looking may or may not be an accurate description of VG, but it's an easy term that most people understand when comparing the look of different games.
Basically, when you say "cartoony" you mean a game that looks like WoW, and when you say "realistic" you mean a game that looks like Vanguard. NOT that WOW actually looks like loony tunes, or that Vanguard actually looks like watching a made for TV movie.
I personally believe that an example of what I think would be 'realistic' looking graphics would be Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, yes it's an offline game, but I honestly have not seen any 'cutting edge' or 'hyper realistic' graphics coming out of the MMORPG market at ALL. Take the characters out of Oblivion, wonder around the forests and mountains looking at the deer and various other animals running around, I find that type of thing breathtaking. My teacher in a Games Design course I am doing in college actually agrees with me on this, because the graphics for the environments are so detailed with trees swaying in separate motion, even the bushes all have separately modelled leaves, just watching that kind of thing literally distracts you from your quests and fighting, that's the kind of stuff I call realistic. Where you actually feel like your in the world and everything looks real or even if it is not real even if it's a building it looks like it has been there for years and years, not just freshly stuck in the ground to make it look like it's supposed to be there.
Cartoony graphics, now there's something I think people get confused by and it has quite a couple of different meanings to it, sometimes from what I've read when people say 'cartoony' they mean just plain 'crap' I think cartoony would be just simply looking like cartoons or Anime (Japanese Cartoons) There also is a style of modelling that is often done by Pixar (mentioned before in posts here I see) they use a style that is similar to the kind of stuff you see on Cartoon Network. I do not believe that World of Warcraft's graphics are cartoony at all personally, there is a type of shading in 3D modelling called Cartoon Shading that some 3D modellers have used, Monsters Inc. is a prime example as would be a show called 'Lion's Pride' I think it was that was hosted on sky one before the company had to give the channel over to Virgin, those are the kind of graphics that I would call cartoony and that uses cartoon shading. World of Warcraft's graphics aren't cartoony, the environments are very well done, but otherwise it is simply a matter of effort, the characters faces (maybe not the females but mostly male) have been done incredibly cheaply, carrying squarish noses and just generally it looks very blocky, the same goes for their bodies and the movements are similar in that they are a sort of robot like movement. Like I've said before, I don't think WoW's character and Item modelling are done cartoonish, though the high tier armour certainly seems to be going that way, I just personally think they haven't put any effort into the characters.
Quoting people doesn't make you clever, in fact, it makes you all the more stupid for not bothering to read the quotes you post in the first place.
Vanguard will always look like another attempt at putting out EQ2 again. Again, crappy build at release = disappointed gamers. Disappointed gamers go on to new titles. Disappointed gamers are very nomadic when it comes to games. They find appeal in some "innovation" in a game and come to the boards whining about what it lacks three weeks later.
I've had my ups and downs with WoW, but I've never once even wanted to leave for this months eye candy (before WAR). Everything else looked like it was trying to put the "limits" of MMORPGs and become some graphics powerhouse. The "biggest" world, the most "involved" character customization. Every games promises a lot, hides the details, and then releases a box full of broken promises.
Look towards a game like Warhammer Online for the real way to market. Hopefully that game isn't too "cartoony". Considering it might actually release with the features it promises.
For me from an eye candy POV.. Wow wins with VG being the worse, just no personality in the VG models, a blank stare and basic idle pose. its all subjective ofc.
WoW wins because Blizzard's artists > everyone else's artists. Plain and simple. More style, more personality ... more art .. less geeky unprofessional computer artists and more real artists, istm.
I look at alot of graphics in games, and one thing I can say with certainty is the WoW's graphics are cartoony. They are oversaturated with sharp transitions between shades, and the characters are off-proportion to emphasize certain aspects.
Another thing I can say is that the graphics in WoW took better steps in achieving realistic graphics then VG did. In VG they understand that in real life, practically nothing is saturated above 50%. However, thats where they stopped listening to what reality holds. To put it quickly, they didn't get the noise right, the dirt at all, the scale right, the architecture fundamentals right, and didn't take the time to see what the player will see and make an effort to hide blatant seams.
.......Dear god.... I can't believe you actually think WoW's graphics beat LOTR Online's, here's a 3D Artist's opinion, yes, I'm doing a games design course so don't go telling me that I don't know my stuff. First, let's look at the background, WoW has bland textures except maybe for the water which is very well done, the mountains just look like huge smooth bumps and the trees look like cylinders with 2D leaf textures put on them. The blood elf has reasonably okay done hair though it looks mostly like a solid object, there is no real emotion in the face and the features are barely visible, the skin texturing and lighting is done reasonably well but it looks a bit too bright. Clothing looks like it has been just stuck on mostly and the cloth has mainly colour detail with little to no bump mapping so it does not at least look like it is seperate from the skin.
Now onto LOTR Online, in the background we see plenty of foliage well done texturing on the ground and there's even some pretty good lighting there with the light breaking up as it goes through the leaves onto the ground, the character herself can clearly be seen as an Elf, the hair looks more naturally modelled and it doesn't look as if it's all just one object, the lighting on the skin is well done also giving it a quite realistic look with the way it reflects, the features on the face are clearly visible and you can almost see that there is a slight surprised or curious look in her eyes with the way she has been modelled. Clothing has a lot more detail put into it, there are proper clothing patterns and bump mapping on the shirt so it makes it look like it's creased and not just 'stuck' on the body, there also is what looks like a collar on the shirt as well adding to that effect.
Quoting people doesn't make you clever, in fact, it makes you all the more stupid for not bothering to read the quotes you post in the first place.
When I played SWG I hated when a Dev would taut a new graphical element. I used to think how SOE/LA could spend money on art when the game itself was broken. Sure it was nice to see highly textured terrain and somewhat realistic characters, but SWG eventually turned into a glorified chat room.
Ico Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
It has absolutly nothing to do with colors, but the way everything is designed.
It's the fact that everything is polarized. It can only be huge or small, not something in between. Taurens are absurdly large while gnomes are absurdly small. Even humans have grossly oversized muscles, weapons, and whatsoever, despite being somewhat normal in proportions.
In cartoons you see this all the time. Action Man with huge overarms and wielding big guns, or Barbie with the tinyest of wastes you can imagine. Hey, does Barbie remind you of something? Yes, she reminds us of WoW characters, especially elves.
But not only characters are extreme, buildings and objects are, too! A chair with huge armleans and back, but with small legs uncapable of sustaining a chair like that if it was in the real world.
Not only are thins polarized, they are drawn in a soft and gentle, almost childish way. That combined with the archetypes, the extremes of the extremes, is so similar to cartoons that the connection is obvious.
Sure, you're right about what you're saying, but you're missing out the important parts by only looking at the subject of "colors".
EDIT: Oh, and another thing -
Cartoons are not only flat, 2-d characters, but also 3-d etc. It's fairly common practice to make cartoons in 3-d. You need to expand your understanding of what cartoon means and go beyond your stereotypical conception of it. You are right about WoW etc are not 2-d, but that still means it can be cartoonish.
I don't see WoW here. (Jimmy Neutron)
Nor here. (TMNT Movie)
Wait, I see one here, but it looks more like Vanguard and EQ2!!!! (Roughnecks)
So, by my research I've concluded that Vanguard is more cartoony than WoW.
It's so easy to back up your point when you only select the material that suits your point.
Basicly what you're saying is that everything that isn't actually real, is in fact cartoons. Or at least that's what you're trying to say.
But perhaps it's wrong to speak of cartoonish graphics, but rather childish and soft graphics, which people usually link to cartoons. Cartoons just sums up the many impressions people get from such games. Hence cartoons are usually childish and soft in terms of graphics and feel.
There will always be odd ones out, and I don't think people think of the last 2 pictures you linked when they hear the word "cartoon". And this is where you go wrong.
I was pretty much joking. You can tell I googled a few cartoons and put them up. You use the label cartoon to mean something that isn't cartoons. "Soft" or "childish" graphics sounds like an unresearched, biased, and largely inaccurate depiction of any VIDEO GAMEs graphics. Considering no game is direct video from the real world all video games are cartoonish. WoW just gets bashed because it stuck with what worked in WC1 2 and 3.
In what other way would YOU, not some expert, but YOU descripe WoW's graphic? I find them childish and soft, don't you?
I really respect Blizzard for sticking with the style throughout the whole series and not jumping on the wagon with insanely over-realistic style. BUT OF WHAT IMPORTANCE DOES THAT PLAY? Absolutly nothing. WoW is still cartoonish.
.......Dear god.... I can't believe you actually think WoW's graphics beat LOTR Online's, here's a 3D Artist's opinion, yes, I'm doing a games design course so don't go telling me that I don't know my stuff. First, let's look at the background, WoW has bland textures except maybe for the water which is very well done, the mountains just look like huge smooth bumps and the trees look like cylinders with 2D leaf textures put on them. The blood elf has reasonably okay done hair though it looks mostly like a solid object, there is no real emotion in the face and the features are barely visible, the skin texturing and lighting is done reasonably well but it looks a bit too bright. Clothing looks like it has been just stuck on mostly and the cloth has mainly colour detail with little to no bump mapping so it does not at least look like it is seperate from the skin.
Now onto LOTR Online, in the background we see plenty of foliage well done texturing on the ground and there's even some pretty good lighting there with the light breaking up as it goes through the leaves onto the ground, the character herself can clearly be seen as an Elf, the hair looks more naturally modelled and it doesn't look as if it's all just one object, the lighting on the skin is well done also giving it a quite realistic look with the way it reflects, the features on the face are clearly visible and you can almost see that there is a slight surprised or curious look in her eyes with the way she has been modelled. Clothing has a lot more detail put into it, there are proper clothing patterns and bump mapping on the shirt so it makes it look like it's creased and not just 'stuck' on the body, there also is what looks like a collar on the shirt as well adding to that effect.
A lot of words, and I do respect your opinion, but the WoW BE is far more fetching and interesting to the eye than the LOTRO character is. And I like LOTRO, don't get me wrong, but the WoW graphic is much more eye-catching, fetching and therefore pleasing to the eye.
There is a difference between what is more pleasing to the end-user's eye, and what is more pleasing to the professional. A professional has a very different eye, and if a game is designed mostly for profssional eyes, other games can take the more "populist" route of what is pleasing to the more "populist" eye.
Comments
It really does all boil down to preference.
- - - -
Support Independent Game Developers
Make no mistake graphics aside, WOW is a quality title. However I'm sorry, I don't buy the excuses for graphic mediocrity in 2007.
If we're going to demand the best from devs & publishers (polished titles with minimal bugs that run well) that includes all phases of the title.
Yes Billy..... graphics are included as well...Now before someone pulls the tired artistic, stylized card don't bother.
A) Yes I can read it now, the first excuse is going to be that WOW requires limited resources to run.. Ok, but may also I remind you games like Granado Espada & LOTRO deliver quality, artistic styled graphics without having to buy a super computer as well?.
So....while I agree the style graphics you're partial to is matter of taste graphical quality is not, especially in 2007.. Regardless if you're favorite car is a Mustang, the Lamborghini is a superior automobile....period.
There MANY areas WOW shines however in 2007 graphics aren't one of them.
Dutchess Zarraa Voltayre
Reborn/Zero Sum/Ancient Legacy/Jagged Legion/Feared/Nuke & Pave.
- - - -
Support Independent Game Developers
Virtual reality was a grand concept that failed miserably. The games never felt any more real than putting on a bike helmet, closing your eyes, and pretending.
Once I took a "virtual reality" tour of the human digestive system. It looked a lot like Starfox for the SNES. Virtual Reality is a future technology...we haven't had the computational power to make it work properly until now.
Virtual Reality a miserable failure? lol...it's obvious that you don't know anything about the subject; there isn't a vehicle of any kind on earth that has been designed, built, and tested without the use of Virtual Reality; most of the drugs that are entering the market today would not even exist were it not for VR; every oil and natural gas company on earth uses VR to not only find new reserves but also to design new and better drilling equipment and methods; the US military is hot as hell for VR and is pouring millions into it's development every year; hundreds of millions of $$ are being spent by corporations and academia world wide on VR research and development every year; and the list goes on and on...
We'll probably see the first VR single player games on the PS4 around the year 2012...and the first VR MMOGs won't happen 'til 2018 or so.
(Conversation from a Vanguard Dev Meeting)
Dev 1: We need a new race!
Dev2: Well, we have a cat guy, a goblin guy, an orc guy
Dev1: Dude. FOX GUY!
Dev2: Score!
Dev1: Yeah, we can just pull the wolf model up, chop the head off, resize it, BAM FOX GUY!
Dev2: I feel like doing a barrel roll already!
Dev1: Mission Accomplished!
Lol that's the funniest thing I've read all day
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
WOW is cartoony to me because of the bright colors, lack of detail in the anatomy (irises), lack of 3D work in the clothing, abundance of low-polygons (at least it looks that way) seen as straight liens.
How do you get great electricity and internet in the desert? Saying you live in a (huge) country with a desert, and therefore you know how it looks, is like saying you live in a country with weather, so you're an expert at how a category 4 hurricane looks. Next time, skip the "I know because..." section. Thanks to the internet, we're all howthedesertREALLYlooks experts.
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
Art in general is so subjective..and i can appreciate many styles. But in terms of video games, the graphics is usually the low end on my list of priorities when i look for something to play. However, I do love games that do take the time to make a distinctive visual
statement, Final Fantasy comes to my mind.
I actually like WoW's graphics, sure its not "high-end" super-hyper realistic, but so what. There are a bunch of games like
that...none of which I care to play. Im one of those players who like to be immersed. I prefer that the graphics be consistant
and fits into the general theme.
I disagree that WoW is a quality title... at least for my playstyle. It's too easy, and it's cheesy. I do agree, however, that demanding excellent games requires focus on all areas of development.
I haven't played Granado Espada, and I haven't fired up the "World Tour" for LoTR yet (will when I get home from work), so I cannot comment on how well those titles run or how they look. I can, however, comment on WoW. WoW does not require much in the hardware department to run well. It is mainly because the game was designed with a dramatically low polygon count, which in my opinion hurts the visual appeal of the game.
I played EQ2 after I beta tested WoW. EQ2 was no where near as lag-free as WoW, but I played it anyway because the graphics weren't as cheesy. Keep in mind, my opinion that WoW is cheesy is simply my opinion. I am not speaking for anyone but me.
Graphical style AND quality go hand in hand for me. I won't care about the style if the quality sucks. I want the best of both worlds... I want a more realistic style in high quality. I am not looking for complete realism, but I am looking for a more believable style done very well.
As for cars, I don't like either model you listed. I would much rather have one of THESE, than either one of those.
- - - -
Support Independent Game Developers
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
A prime example of 'cartoony' graphics would be in anime, now I don't know about you, but I watch anime quite a lot these days simply because it's a lot more original than the stuff they have on t.v but the amount of detail they put into some of the characters on the good anime is fantastic and keep in mind this is probably all done pencil and paper or on a tablet (electronic drawing) I've seen a few 3D scenes as well, a good example of this would be Full Metal Panic, a huge submarine they had in that series was all done in 3D even the missiles that were fired, It was just great to see that kind of blend and they didn't do a lazy job of it.
Sometimes I think that developers and some gamers see cartoony as 'bad' no, cartoony can be good when done right, if graphics are crap they are simply just that, crap, it doesn't matter how many polygons there are or how smooth and shiny it looks, it depends on the amount of work that's been put into it.
Quoting people doesn't make you clever, in fact, it makes you all the more stupid for not bothering to read the quotes you post in the first place.
hehehehehe
- - - -
Support Independent Game Developers
The number of polygons directly relates to how well the game performs and how nice it looks. Polygon count is a major... major... major concern in game design. And the smooth & shiny is very important as well. If it looks like a dirty ass, people aren't going to want to touch it.
The amount of work is definitely important... but it has to be quality work
- - - -
Support Independent Game Developers
Quoting people doesn't make you clever, in fact, it makes you all the more stupid for not bothering to read the quotes you post in the first place.
WoW looks to much like a cartoon to me. At first I disliked the WAR look as well, because it also looks somewhat cartoony, but it's grown on me. WAR is a little bit grittier, and more pleasing to the eye than the bright WOW graphics, at least IMO.
"Cartoon" looking may or may not be accurate when describing WoW, but it's an easy way to describe why I, and many others, don't like WoW grapics. "Realistic" looking may or may not be an accurate description of VG, but it's an easy term that most people understand when comparing the look of different games.
Basically, when you say "cartoony" you mean a game that looks like WoW, and when you say "realistic" you mean a game that looks like Vanguard. NOT that WOW actually looks like loony tunes, or that Vanguard actually looks like watching a made for TV movie.
Cartoony graphics, now there's something I think people get confused by and it has quite a couple of different meanings to it, sometimes from what I've read when people say 'cartoony' they mean just plain 'crap' I think cartoony would be just simply looking like cartoons or Anime (Japanese Cartoons) There also is a style of modelling that is often done by Pixar (mentioned before in posts here I see) they use a style that is similar to the kind of stuff you see on Cartoon Network. I do not believe that World of Warcraft's graphics are cartoony at all personally, there is a type of shading in 3D modelling called Cartoon Shading that some 3D modellers have used, Monsters Inc. is a prime example as would be a show called 'Lion's Pride' I think it was that was hosted on sky one before the company had to give the channel over to Virgin, those are the kind of graphics that I would call cartoony and that uses cartoon shading. World of Warcraft's graphics aren't cartoony, the environments are very well done, but otherwise it is simply a matter of effort, the characters faces (maybe not the females but mostly male) have been done incredibly cheaply, carrying squarish noses and just generally it looks very blocky, the same goes for their bodies and the movements are similar in that they are a sort of robot like movement. Like I've said before, I don't think WoW's character and Item modelling are done cartoonish, though the high tier armour certainly seems to be going that way, I just personally think they haven't put any effort into the characters.
Quoting people doesn't make you clever, in fact, it makes you all the more stupid for not bothering to read the quotes you post in the first place.
I've had my ups and downs with WoW, but I've never once even wanted to leave for this months eye candy (before WAR). Everything else looked like it was trying to put the "limits" of MMORPGs and become some graphics powerhouse. The "biggest" world, the most "involved" character customization. Every games promises a lot, hides the details, and then releases a box full of broken promises.
Look towards a game like Warhammer Online for the real way to market. Hopefully that game isn't too "cartoony". Considering it might actually release with the features it promises.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
WoW wins because Blizzard's artists > everyone else's artists. Plain and simple. More style, more personality ... more art .. less geeky unprofessional computer artists and more real artists, istm.
I look at alot of graphics in games, and one thing I can say with certainty is the WoW's graphics are cartoony. They are oversaturated with sharp transitions between shades, and the characters are off-proportion to emphasize certain aspects.
Another thing I can say is that the graphics in WoW took better steps in achieving realistic graphics then VG did. In VG they understand that in real life, practically nothing is saturated above 50%. However, thats where they stopped listening to what reality holds. To put it quickly, they didn't get the noise right, the dirt at all, the scale right, the architecture fundamentals right, and didn't take the time to see what the player will see and make an effort to hide blatant seams.
.......Dear god.... I can't believe you actually think WoW's graphics beat LOTR Online's, here's a 3D Artist's opinion, yes, I'm doing a games design course so don't go telling me that I don't know my stuff. First, let's look at the background, WoW has bland textures except maybe for the water which is very well done, the mountains just look like huge smooth bumps and the trees look like cylinders with 2D leaf textures put on them. The blood elf has reasonably okay done hair though it looks mostly like a solid object, there is no real emotion in the face and the features are barely visible, the skin texturing and lighting is done reasonably well but it looks a bit too bright. Clothing looks like it has been just stuck on mostly and the cloth has mainly colour detail with little to no bump mapping so it does not at least look like it is seperate from the skin.
Now onto LOTR Online, in the background we see plenty of foliage well done texturing on the ground and there's even some pretty good lighting there with the light breaking up as it goes through the leaves onto the ground, the character herself can clearly be seen as an Elf, the hair looks more naturally modelled and it doesn't look as if it's all just one object, the lighting on the skin is well done also giving it a quite realistic look with the way it reflects, the features on the face are clearly visible and you can almost see that there is a slight surprised or curious look in her eyes with the way she has been modelled. Clothing has a lot more detail put into it, there are proper clothing patterns and bump mapping on the shirt so it makes it look like it's creased and not just 'stuck' on the body, there also is what looks like a collar on the shirt as well adding to that effect.
Quoting people doesn't make you clever, in fact, it makes you all the more stupid for not bothering to read the quotes you post in the first place.
Game Play and Performance > Art
When I played SWG I hated when a Dev would taut a new graphical element. I used to think how SOE/LA could spend money on art when the game itself was broken. Sure it was nice to see highly textured terrain and somewhat realistic characters, but SWG eventually turned into a glorified chat room.
Ico
Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
Nor here. (TMNT Movie)
Wait, I see one here, but it looks more like Vanguard and EQ2!!!! (Roughnecks)
So, by my research I've concluded that Vanguard is more cartoony than WoW.
It's so easy to back up your point when you only select the material that suits your point.
Basicly what you're saying is that everything that isn't actually real, is in fact cartoons. Or at least that's what you're trying to say.
But perhaps it's wrong to speak of cartoonish graphics, but rather childish and soft graphics, which people usually link to cartoons. Cartoons just sums up the many impressions people get from such games. Hence cartoons are usually childish and soft in terms of graphics and feel.
There will always be odd ones out, and I don't think people think of the last 2 pictures you linked when they hear the word "cartoon". And this is where you go wrong.
I was pretty much joking. You can tell I googled a few cartoons and put them up. You use the label cartoon to mean something that isn't cartoons. "Soft" or "childish" graphics sounds like an unresearched, biased, and largely inaccurate depiction of any VIDEO GAMEs graphics. Considering no game is direct video from the real world all video games are cartoonish. WoW just gets bashed because it stuck with what worked in WC1 2 and 3.
In what other way would YOU, not some expert, but YOU descripe WoW's graphic? I find them childish and soft, don't you?
I really respect Blizzard for sticking with the style throughout the whole series and not jumping on the wagon with insanely over-realistic style. BUT OF WHAT IMPORTANCE DOES THAT PLAY? Absolutly nothing. WoW is still cartoonish.
There is a difference between what is more pleasing to the end-user's eye, and what is more pleasing to the professional. A professional has a very different eye, and if a game is designed mostly for profssional eyes, other games can take the more "populist" route of what is pleasing to the more "populist" eye.