Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Does AoC graphics make WAR's graphics look dated?
noblot
Member Posts: 287
I have been comparing Age of Conan graphics against WAR's. My conclusion is that WAR's graphics are looking "dated" by comparison.
As a long time DAoC player, I have always like Mythics "muted" graphics; however putting up AoC and LoTR against WAR's current crop of screen shots, I get the feeling that they are not up to the same standard.
Obviously there is time for a bit of posh; however do we think this game is going to come off as second best in the graphics stakes?
And for that matter, will WAR success be hampered, should the game ship with out "super model" appearence?
Comments
sure thing but what are good graphic when half of population cant afford paying 1500-2000 dollars for a descent comp to make the game run smooth? im sure theyll loose lot of people only because of that so maybe it is only a matter of "marketing" thingy
More advanced graphics =/= better.
Different strokes for different folks. The lower graphical requirements also mean more people will be able to play it, since the average player will not buy a new computer just to play one game. If anything the "outdated" graphics will increase sales because of accessability.
Want proof? Look at WoW. Thats how you make money. Notice how I didn't say any of these games are better. But in relation to your topic, the graphics won't hurt WAR's subs.
Dated!? Thats absurd! Its the style of art Mythic chose to use. Look at the success Blizzard has with their choice of art style. Or you can also look at Nintendo and the success of their Wii. The best or high end graphics means squat if the core of your player base can't run the game, and/or the systems running in the background don't work well.
Even Vanguard makes WAR's graphics look dated just like EQ2 did WoW's. However that's from a technical standpoint. That doesn't mean the game looks better to someone, just generally more intricate. To me WoW looked infinitely better than EQ2 which looked like a drab and dull world to me with a palette from grey to brown and a style that didn't please me at all.
Just because a game's graphics aren't uptodate on a technical side doesn't mean it can't look beautiful.
(I happen not to be a big fan of WAR's art style but that's very much a personal thing, I'm sure many people consider it beautiful)
it should never always be about the graphics It should be about the game play overall..
It's an ART STYLE...It is how the Warhammer world look and has looked for over 25 years. Sure if the WAR devs came out and stated "Hey everyone, how do you like the realistic graphics on our game" yeah then they would be crazy but its not always the last released game with the better graphics
Whats funny is EQ2 & Vanguard's graphics actually were part of the immense issues / downfall of both games. EQ2 would of seen a way larger audience if their requirements hadn't of been outrageous.
Honestly graphics don't make the game. If WAR had AoC's graphics it would not be able to give us even half of the things they've put into the game. I'm glad WAR didn't go for the realistic approach..it'd of turned me off immediately after my experiences with EQ2..and I love the world of Everquest.
btw don't we already have like 5 worthless topics on this subject? Why can't any of the new visitors to the WAR Forum area post about the gameplay instead of the worthless stuff.
Please Refer to Doom Cat with all conspiracies & evil corporation complaints. He'll give you the simple explination of..WE"RE ALL DOOMED!
Actually I think War did the right thing with the graphics not just because of computer specs but because of the large battle RvR these graphics will make the game run smoother then if it had the heavier graphics of AoC.
AoC is beautiful but look at the fact it uses heavy instancing, siege battles limited to 48 vs 48, I dont think War will have these problems and one main reason is the graphics they chose to use.
Out of every 100 men, 10 should not be there,
80 are nothing but targets, 9 are the real fighters.
Ah, but one, ONE of them is a warrior,
and he will bring the others home.
-Heraclitus 500BC
Whats funny is EQ2 & Vanguard's graphics actually were part of the immense issues / downfall of both games. EQ2 would of seen a way larger audience if their requirements hadn't of been outrageous.
That's an intesting point, games failing from good graphics
Obviously a lot of people are complaining about AoC system requirement, gotta hamper sales. On the other hand, I'm not so convinced that good graphics translate to server or network load. Although lag is a game killer, I don't play LoTR online after 1900 as combined network and server lag, as well as low spec (now) system just removes all player enjoyment.
Obviously, both the Wii and DS are popular and excellent platforms (in many respects "out selling" Sony's vastly technically superior hardware). So the arguement that graphics do not make the game, gameplay does, is certainly valid. However, I do worry that "critics" will use a lower score on the graphics front to put off players that might overwise try the game (and my Orc will definately be looking for fresh meat -much tenderer).
btw don't we already have like 5 worthless topics on this subject? Why can't any of the new visitors to the WAR Forum area post about the gameplay instead of the worthless stuff.
True, but seemed a topical point given AoC launch. Unless you are in the beta it is difficult to comment on the gameplay (particulary given that is the area most likely to be "tweaked" over the next couple of months). I am definately looking forward to the game, I have been waiting 21 years to play it (since I first became a Warhammer fanboy)
Thanks for the comments, the debate has been interesting.
Different art styles.
One is more cartoon looking , the other is realistic.
Would be like saying the Simpsons looked dated compared to American Gangster or something like that.
Gameplay is going to be the reason why WAR is more popular than Age of Loading screens .
The main draw back with AoC is the high end graphics, really. I bought it, thinking I could run the minimum requirements. But my computer's graphics card crapped out on me.
I'm not all that worried about running Warhammer, because I will be buying a new system soon, but I think War will be a more successful game. (Especially since Gamesworkshop and Warhammer already have a following. )
Groovy.
By the time WAR will come out, todays high-end hardware will be cheaper. Look at 8800GT which can handle AOC pretty well, now you can get it for 140 € or less, at first 260-290. Even 9600 GT is great bargain.
So your argument against AOC's higher requirements and uber high-end PC against WAR's lower graphics and of course lower requirements fails.
I havent got to play AoC cuz my computer sucks but i gotta say.. the graphics dont look as good as i thought it would be when i see all the screen shots an vids ppl are putting out. dont get me wrong it does look good but not the way everyone made it sound. maybe most of the ppl putting stuff out are running it with graphic detail on low? *shrug* kinda just makes me think of a PS2 game when i see it.
WAR im not sure about, some screenshots i see look amazing an some look bland/wowish(sorry guys! just only thing i could think to compare it to.) but either way it will run on many more systems than AoC will so im sure that in itself will draw in a pretty big chunk of mmo players. not to mention WAR has everything im looking for in a mmo so reguardless of the fact AoC may make it look dated i will still be playing it as will many others i think. especialy if your a fan of PvP or a DAoC vet WAR will rock for you.
but this is comming from a guy whos first mmo experiance was MUD's lol. half of the people i know who play mmo's never even heard of them and dont like reading much in the 1st place hah so they may only like eye candy. me tho.. im all about the game play.
thats whats great about all the mmo's out there, something for everyone.
Gorguk ... I could write your same lines and only exchange titles of both games. But I could also ad that WAR looks even worse on low graphics settings.
So, if you compare AOC on low with PS2, how would you compare WAR on low? With PS1 maybe or even N64 ;=)?
Of course judging by user posted screenshots is not reliable, especially if made in beta.
I mean, it surely seems to be affecting Conan's success. And it did affect many other games before this, like Crysys, EQ2, Vanguard etc. etc.
Even 6 months from now when WAR launches, having low requirements, and I mean *really* low requirements is not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, the dedicated gamers will have by then computers that will burn WAR requirements, but if you want more numbers and so more success, you need to think of the not so dedicated gamers that change computers maybe once every 2-4 years.
Sure, maybe WAR is not marketing to those people, but having the extra possibilities always helps.
It is not just graphics either. Conan manages the level of graphics also by throwing out the "seamless" world concept, lot of zoning and lot of loading times, as fast as they are, will break up your experience.
With lower graphics, as WAR has, a seeamless world where there are no loading times is more feasible.
I'm not sure if this happens in war between Tier zones, but at least moving from the PvE to the PvP part of each zone is seamless. This might improve immersion and be a positive point even for those people that would not have any hardware problems.
"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"
I love good graphics, but itf that means spending 500€ to upgrade my computer, plus playing in an instanced world, with constant zoning, invisible walls, stuttering, worrying about frame rates... no thanks I have had enough of that already. I prefer 1000 times better average polygons with an outstanding art style.
But to answer the question, no I don't think War's graphics look dated, compared to AoC, it feels like a different aproach. What looks dated is AoC technical solutions.
i cannot believe this kind of thread exists...
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
volkmar ...what makes you think AOC isn't successfull? Is it just in your head (feeling) or can you support that with any data?
As for instances, its not that bad as some are trying to sell on this forum (but then again even GW had over 2 M players; or is it 4). Is saves us from playing on to crowded servers, like japanese pools in summer, every swimmer gets 1 cubic meter of water to swim hehe. Ok joke aside, as I posted on other forum, not every player shares same veiw; or taste for graphic art in that matter, and many find AOC a good product.
I wont bash or praise WAR untill I see it as end product. Paper and reality are often different in final release and I wouldn't be surprised if we also see instances in WAR.
you can make AOC run smootly on a mid-range pc ...
WAR will probably be the same
Then they should buy consoles and play their games and leave computer gaming to the people who can afford gaming machines.
Yes AOC is also coming on Xbox360
, only 299 € (199 € Core). Another milion or so players? Just guessing. 
.
Who cares. You wont find replayability in graphics.
Besides RL boobs > pixelated boobs.
Then they should buy consoles and play their games and leave computer gaming to the people who can afford gaming machines.
Yes lets throw away the one thing PC gaming has for it...MMOs...if you suddenly make all MMOs high end and forgo what they're really meant to stand for...*shakes head* PC Gaming would finally die htis time. Did you ever wonder why PC games have seen less and less titles over the years? Developers need customers...Funcom may of attracted the customers they wanted...but a real MMO is going to make a game and work its requirements to include as many people as are interested.
High End Crysis Style Graphics were never meant for MMOs...MMOS have always been a step or two behind. Everquest 2 and Vanguard already proved trying to speed up the process does not bode well. Once a customer is turned off to an MMO they're almost never change their mind.
btw I don't think their graphics look dated in the least, they look 100 times better than WoW but are not realistic like AoC. They're just a completely different art style if you dont like it...don't play it until you hear how good it is.
I still think its funny how delusional you AoC fan boys are...AOC did not retail sell 700,000+ copies. 700,000 copies was what went out to the retailers but i can tell you right now they aren't sold out in stores. Does this mean the game did ultimate fail? No of course not. But it does mean Funcom's hiding the truth. We'll see in a month or two once people get settled in. I'm betting for a healthy 200k population for AoC. More than enough to keep a game running for quite a long time.
Please Refer to Doom Cat with all conspiracies & evil corporation complaints. He'll give you the simple explination of..WE"RE ALL DOOMED!
hahaha, thats funny, however I saw it somewhere here, forgot who posted it but Anarchy Online Continued is the best so far!
Then they should buy consoles and play their games and leave computer gaming to the people who can afford gaming machines.
Yes lets throw away the one thing PC gaming has for it...MMOs...if you suddenly make all MMOs high end and forgo what they're really meant to stand for...*shakes head* PC Gaming would finally die htis time. Did you ever wonder why PC games have seen less and less titles over the years? Developers need customers...Funcom may of attracted the customers they wanted...but a real MMO is going to make a game and work its requirements to include as many people as are interested.
High End Crysis Style Graphics were never meant for MMOs...MMOS have always been a step or two behind. Everquest 2 and Vanguard already proved trying to speed up the process does not bode well. Once a customer is turned off to an MMO they're almost never change their mind.
btw I don't think their graphics look dated in the least, they look 100 times better than WoW but are not realistic like AoC. They're just a completely different art style if you dont like it...don't play it until you hear how good it is.
I still think its funny how delusional you AoC fan boys are...AOC did not retail sell 700,000+ copies. 700,000 copies was what went out to the retailers but i can tell you right now they aren't sold out in stores. Does this mean the game did ultimate fail? No of course not. But it does mean Funcom's hiding the truth. We'll see in a month or two once people get settled in. I'm betting for a healthy 200k population for AoC. More than enough to keep a game running for quite a long time.
I am a war fanboy but I think you are underestimating Age of Conan. All 110K CE copies sold out. They had over 1 million Beta applications. They are having a hugely succesful launch and are fully capable of the graphics they have without loading screens all over. I only load when entering dungeons and zoning between HUGE zones. And when I say huge they are really really big.The first 20 levels of the game were designed as a single player experience. So the game plays as a really good single player RPG with all the normal features of a single player RPG like cut scenes etc.
I would guess that AoC will be considered a huge success and will actually end up with around 400K subscribers maybe even more.
Now I think WAR will be even more successful due to the design of the game and will be closer to 1 million subscribers. But there is room for both games and both games seem to be looking good.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Then they should buy consoles and play their games and leave computer gaming to the people who can afford gaming machines.
Yes lets throw away the one thing PC gaming has for it...MMOs...if you suddenly make all MMOs high end and forgo what they're really meant to stand for...*shakes head* PC Gaming would finally die htis time. Did you ever wonder why PC games have seen less and less titles over the years? Developers need customers...Funcom may of attracted the customers they wanted...but a real MMO is going to make a game and work its requirements to include as many people as are interested.
High End Crysis Style Graphics were never meant for MMOs...MMOS have always been a step or two behind. Everquest 2 and Vanguard already proved trying to speed up the process does not bode well. Once a customer is turned off to an MMO they're almost never change their mind.
btw I don't think their graphics look dated in the least, they look 100 times better than WoW but are not realistic like AoC. They're just a completely different art style if you dont like it...don't play it until you hear how good it is.
I still think its funny how delusional you AoC fan boys are...AOC did not retail sell 700,000+ copies. 700,000 copies was what went out to the retailers but i can tell you right now they aren't sold out in stores. Does this mean the game did ultimate fail? No of course not. But it does mean Funcom's hiding the truth. We'll see in a month or two once people get settled in. I'm betting for a healthy 200k population for AoC. More than enough to keep a game running for quite a long time.
I am a war fanboy but I think you are underestimating Age of Conan. All 110K CE copies sold out. They had over 1 million Beta applications. They are having a hugely succesful launch and are fully capable of the graphics they have without loading screens all over. I only load when entering dungeons and zoning between HUGE zones. And when I say huge they are really really big.The first 20 levels of the game were designed as a single player experience. So the game plays as a really good single player RPG with all the normal features of a single player RPG like cut scenes etc.
I would guess that AoC will be considered a huge success and will actually end up with around 400K subscribers maybe even more.
Now I think WAR will be even more successful due to the design of the game and will be closer to 1 million subscribers. But there is room for both games and both games seem to be looking good.
It s true though they did not sell 700k thats what went out to the retailers. I know of 30 people personally(guilds in many games) that decided not to buy it even though they all signed up for beta. It will be a success but these numbers being thrown around are pointless until 3 months from now. Then the test when WAR releases and WOWLK releases.