To me looking at the previous links I would say that there is AA, and the textures get an upgrade.
I've seen pics like that and they look like a HUGE improvement. I hope you are right.
Well I definately would hope there would be what I am seeing in this video. Atleast it exists somewhere lol.
As you can see, grass has no improvement. But, everything looks alot shinier and looks alot more realistic and cleaner then the current graphics. Got to be an improvement. Or he's using the best or one of the best graphic cards out. I got a good one with 512mb in it so it's not like, it would be a HUGE difference....mine should still look cleaner...so ye plus I always thought the graphics settings looked very slim ...well since yesterday, lol.
I have also read a lot of people complaining about a memory dump or overusage of RAM for the game. I was reading some time back that they currently have an application running in the background that sucks up resources like crazy to help them in improving the game, thus the reason why they wanted to test the game at a lower setting so it would be playable. Can anyone confirm this? I've seen lots of posts in the past.
Looking forward to : Guild Wars 2 Retired: FFXI, Guildwars, EVE On-line, Tabula Rasa, WoW, Rift
From what I understand the graphic settings were purposly lowered for beta to help with testing. So even the highest settings you can get in beta are still below what you should see at launch, or so the theory would go.
I remember a certain game that launched recently that, supposedly, had purposly deminished aspects of the game during beta. I believe it was stated that "It was to help with the testing". That game is failing miserably right now.
You know, I hope I am wrong but I can almost promise you, what you see with this beta is what you are going to get come launch.
Just enjoy it for what it is.
Possibly. Graphics could be another hype and if this leak is coming from mythic and it doesn't come true, it would be just another small way for them to make money. Saying, hey you won't good graphics unless you play retail, lol. That would be stupid on their part though, people would just say these graphics are so so and some wouldn't play for that reason because they expected more.
I also don't understand why they would do that...because when retail comes if they were to do the graphical switch, it would be the same situation. I don't get it. I know they are testing server capacity etc...but we want to test graphics, lol. The real graphics we've seen all over the place.
To me looking at the previous links I would say that there is AA, and the textures get an upgrade.
I've seen pics like that and they look like a HUGE improvement. I hope you are right.
Well I definately would hope there would be what I am seeing in this video. Atleast it exists somewhere lol.
As you can see, grass has no improvement. But, everything looks alot shinier and looks alot more realistic and cleaner then the current graphics. Got to be an improvement. Or he's using the best or one of the best graphic cards out. I got a good one with 512mb in it so it's not like, it would be a HUGE difference....mine should still look cleaner...so ye plus I always thought the graphics settings looked very slim ...well since yesterday, lol.
I have also read a lot of people complaining about a memory dump or overusage of RAM for the game. I was reading some time back that they currently have an application running in the background that sucks up resources like crazy to help them in improving the game, thus the reason why they wanted to test the game at a lower setting so it would be playable. Can anyone confirm this? I've seen lots of posts in the past.
My brother was going NUTS because his was running at 600k, LOL. He only has 1gb on his computer, haha. He said everytime he walked, he lagged. I said, "sucks for you"...lol
Btw if that's the reason, I would be happy. Better graphics = even more enjoyment.
Originally posted by BioNut Originally posted by TurnX From what I understand the graphic settings were purposly lowered for beta to help with testing. So even the highest settings you can get in beta are still below what you should see at launch, or so the theory would go.
I remember a certain game that launched recently that, supposedly, had purposly deminished aspects of the game during beta. I believe it was stated that "It was to help with the testing". That game is failing miserably right now. You know, I hope I am wrong but I can almost promise you, what you see with this beta is what you are going to get come launch.
Just enjoy it for what it is.
I would agree. I remember when this same company had Anarchy Online in beta right before launch and there were "rumors" that a magic new version of the client or a patch was going to make it work (it didn't work then or at launch), and make it like a trillion bazillion times better then anyone could ever in the wildest dreams imagine! Well there was no magic client/patch. This is just another rushed to the market launch which is not remotely the exception in MMO's. Anyone who buys/pre-orders these games have only themselves to blame. This has been business as usual for years, until people stop accepting it this is how it'll be.
AOC was ten times better at release than in open beta so I'm missing the point? AOC was just a terribly made game from a basic gameplay and combat system standpoint and had a ton of broken features that weren't shown by the level 20 out 80 beta client.
i think a lot of this thread is not understanding the question as i think i do. because ive had the same question. with the size of games and high res textures these days most MMO beta probably scale back lots of high res stuff to cut down on the DL size. LotRO did this and so did WoW back in the day.
my question would be what exactly has been cut out that we will see installed from the retail box that we dont have now. i am assuming and hoping at the very least ani-sotropic filtering because watching lines about 3' in front of your character and beyond the line it looks like low textures. sometimes lately games dont officially support AA in favor of certain lighting technologies but like i said as long as we get Ani-Sotropic i will be happy, but its not a far stretch to hope for AA as well.
im also guessing that we'll see high res textures added to the environment as well as other places too.
believe me, for the people that dont have muscle PCs the game looks very decent and playable as of right now which is good for people that arent lucky enough to have anything higher than a 7600. and also, i know for those of us that like to tweak the game will look twice as good when we get our DVD installed from the retail boxes...
The textures aren't super-crisp, but I don't spend my average playsession zoomed in on my shield looking for pixellation. When actually playing, with the camera zoomed to a normal distance, the textures do fine for me.
THAT SAID the texture filtering used bothers me a lot. Some anisotropic would be nice, because as it is now everything gets that haze starting at a distance that is far too close. It's like Xbox 360 texture pop-in, except all the time, any time you move.
The animations are solid, I like them. They're not so laboriously slow that it looks like "fake fighting" but they're not so fast that you can't see what's going on.
THAT SAID there needs to be some animation culling options. Much like my texture complaint, the animations start getting culled at far too close a distance. Seeing anyone fighting 20 feet away looks clunky, seeing someone run across the horizon looks like Mr. Game & Watch.
I understand the choices they made were with a bigger, RVR-sized picture in mind, and wanting people to be able to still run the game smoothly (which it has so far, at least for me) but I'd like to at least attempt these visual tweaks to see if my rig can handle them, rather than simply be denied them.
From what I understand the graphic settings were purposly lowered for beta to help with testing. So even the highest settings you can get in beta are still below what you should see at launch, or so the theory would go.
I remember a certain game that launched recently that, supposedly, had purposly deminished aspects of the game during beta. I believe it was stated that "It was to help with the testing". That game is failing miserably right now.
You know, I hope I am wrong but I can almost promise you, what you see with this beta is what you are going to get come launch.
Just enjoy it for what it is.
400k subscribers is not a failure if you're talking about Conan.
Not even close to failure, so far and away.
Peoples concepts of MMOs and what makes an MMO fail eludes my logics. It just makes no sense half the time.
I've found the animation so bad that I may not be getting the game, visually I hate it.
I'm far from a WoW fanboy but something WoW always got right for me was a feeling of weight behind a blow, when my Troll Warrior hit a crit with a big two hander it FELT like it. Very let down myself.
Im playing the OB and I enjoy the game alot but I agree with the above poster, the animations and sounds need tweaking, most of the time it feels like im swinging through air, but I guess thats something they are gonna polish or should be polishing along with the mob ai/pathing other than that im very pleased with the game.
At this point the graphics in this game looks worst than LOTRO. The animation is simply terrible at times, worst when you're looking at someone at a distance and the popups are insane. The melee combat doesn't look cool and the animations simply lack conviction. The giant black orc swing an axe like he's trying to bat away a pesky fly instead of cleaving someone head off.
My biggest issue with the graphics are that the world looks really dull and dead compared to LotrO, AoC or even WoW... Also it seems like the draw distance is really short becaouse of some kind of fog and there doesnt seem to be any huge views over the landscape that makes you go "Damn that looks awesome"!
If WoW = The Beatles and WAR = Led Zeppelin Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
My biggest issue with the graphics are that the world looks really dull and dead compared to LotrO, AoC or even WoW... Also it seems like the draw distance is really short becaouse of some kind of fog and there doesnt seem to be any huge views over the landscape that makes you go "Damn that looks awesome"!
This is actually one of the strong points for me - the landscapes and huge castles and structures looming over you. But everyone has a different taste
At this point the graphics in this game looks worst than LOTRO. The animation is simply terrible at times, worst when you're looking at someone at a distance and the popups are insane. The melee combat doesn't look cool and the animations simply lack conviction. The giant black orc swing an axe like he's trying to bat away a pesky fly instead of cleaving someone head off.
LOTRO had marvelous views I remember: 10/10, but the character animations were very clunky 5/10.
Is WAR worse than LOTRO?
Still waiting for my mail confirmation: 18 hours now and 16 mails send.
LOTRO had marvelous views I remember: 10/10, but the character animations were very clunky 5/10. Is WAR worse than LOTRO? Still waiting for my mail confirmation: 18 hours now and 16 mails send.
I would say that the breathtaking sceneries are in WAR as well. Animations are better than LoTRO with a margin but slightly worse than WoW.
too bad we can't merge the combat, animations and graphics of AoC in with the game play of WAR. Now that would be a hell of a game.
BTW my machine specs are E8400 OC'ed to 3600MhZ, WinXP with 2 gig ram, and a NVidia 260 OC'ed to 725 core and 2300 memory. I was running everything at the highest setting @1680 x 1050. Specificly what annoyed me was the lack of ingame AA settings and the lighting and textures left a lot to be desired. Quite frankly LoTRO and AoC are much easier on my eyes but LoTRO's MvP leaves something to be desired and AoC just sucks. Stil I won't pay to paly WAR just for the PvP since I was not thrilled by their PvE either.
The graphics looks just fine to me kind of if you combine wow with lotro. Yes they is room for improvement especially with regards to character combat animations but in all I find the graphics good enough.
Comments
I've seen pics like that and they look like a HUGE improvement. I hope you are right.
Well I definately would hope there would be what I am seeing in this video. Atleast it exists somewhere lol.
As you can see, grass has no improvement. But, everything looks alot shinier and looks alot more realistic and cleaner then the current graphics. Got to be an improvement. Or he's using the best or one of the best graphic cards out. I got a good one with 512mb in it so it's not like, it would be a HUGE difference....mine should still look cleaner...so ye plus I always thought the graphics settings looked very slim ...well since yesterday, lol.
I have also read a lot of people complaining about a memory dump or overusage of RAM for the game. I was reading some time back that they currently have an application running in the background that sucks up resources like crazy to help them in improving the game, thus the reason why they wanted to test the game at a lower setting so it would be playable. Can anyone confirm this? I've seen lots of posts in the past.
Looking forward to : Guild Wars 2
Retired: FFXI, Guildwars, EVE On-line, Tabula Rasa, WoW, Rift
I remember a certain game that launched recently that, supposedly, had purposly deminished aspects of the game during beta. I believe it was stated that "It was to help with the testing". That game is failing miserably right now.
You know, I hope I am wrong but I can almost promise you, what you see with this beta is what you are going to get come launch.
Just enjoy it for what it is.
Possibly. Graphics could be another hype and if this leak is coming from mythic and it doesn't come true, it would be just another small way for them to make money. Saying, hey you won't good graphics unless you play retail, lol. That would be stupid on their part though, people would just say these graphics are so so and some wouldn't play for that reason because they expected more.
I also don't understand why they would do that...because when retail comes if they were to do the graphical switch, it would be the same situation. I don't get it. I know they are testing server capacity etc...but we want to test graphics, lol. The real graphics we've seen all over the place.
I've seen pics like that and they look like a HUGE improvement. I hope you are right.
Well I definately would hope there would be what I am seeing in this video. Atleast it exists somewhere lol.
As you can see, grass has no improvement. But, everything looks alot shinier and looks alot more realistic and cleaner then the current graphics. Got to be an improvement. Or he's using the best or one of the best graphic cards out. I got a good one with 512mb in it so it's not like, it would be a HUGE difference....mine should still look cleaner...so ye plus I always thought the graphics settings looked very slim ...well since yesterday, lol.
I have also read a lot of people complaining about a memory dump or overusage of RAM for the game. I was reading some time back that they currently have an application running in the background that sucks up resources like crazy to help them in improving the game, thus the reason why they wanted to test the game at a lower setting so it would be playable. Can anyone confirm this? I've seen lots of posts in the past.
My brother was going NUTS because his was running at 600k, LOL. He only has 1gb on his computer, haha. He said everytime he walked, he lagged. I said, "sucks for you"...lol
Btw if that's the reason, I would be happy. Better graphics = even more enjoyment.
I remember a certain game that launched recently that, supposedly, had purposly deminished aspects of the game during beta. I believe it was stated that "It was to help with the testing". That game is failing miserably right now.
You know, I hope I am wrong but I can almost promise you, what you see with this beta is what you are going to get come launch.
Just enjoy it for what it is.
I would agree. I remember when this same company had Anarchy Online in beta right before launch and there were "rumors" that a magic new version of the client or a patch was going to make it work (it didn't work then or at launch), and make it like a trillion bazillion times better then anyone could ever in the wildest dreams imagine! Well there was no magic client/patch. This is just another rushed to the market launch which is not remotely the exception in MMO's. Anyone who buys/pre-orders these games have only themselves to blame. This has been business as usual for years, until people stop accepting it this is how it'll be.
AOC was ten times better at release than in open beta so I'm missing the point? AOC was just a terribly made game from a basic gameplay and combat system standpoint and had a ton of broken features that weren't shown by the level 20 out 80 beta client.
Not really the same thing at all.
i think a lot of this thread is not understanding the question as i think i do. because ive had the same question. with the size of games and high res textures these days most MMO beta probably scale back lots of high res stuff to cut down on the DL size. LotRO did this and so did WoW back in the day.
my question would be what exactly has been cut out that we will see installed from the retail box that we dont have now. i am assuming and hoping at the very least ani-sotropic filtering because watching lines about 3' in front of your character and beyond the line it looks like low textures. sometimes lately games dont officially support AA in favor of certain lighting technologies but like i said as long as we get Ani-Sotropic i will be happy, but its not a far stretch to hope for AA as well.
im also guessing that we'll see high res textures added to the environment as well as other places too.
believe me, for the people that dont have muscle PCs the game looks very decent and playable as of right now which is good for people that arent lucky enough to have anything higher than a 7600. and also, i know for those of us that like to tweak the game will look twice as good when we get our DVD installed from the retail boxes...
It looks great atm but like many here pointed out. Many things are not ok.
Im guessing retail will sort that out.
I like the way the game looks, for the most part.
The textures aren't super-crisp, but I don't spend my average playsession zoomed in on my shield looking for pixellation. When actually playing, with the camera zoomed to a normal distance, the textures do fine for me.
THAT SAID the texture filtering used bothers me a lot. Some anisotropic would be nice, because as it is now everything gets that haze starting at a distance that is far too close. It's like Xbox 360 texture pop-in, except all the time, any time you move.
The animations are solid, I like them. They're not so laboriously slow that it looks like "fake fighting" but they're not so fast that you can't see what's going on.
THAT SAID there needs to be some animation culling options. Much like my texture complaint, the animations start getting culled at far too close a distance. Seeing anyone fighting 20 feet away looks clunky, seeing someone run across the horizon looks like Mr. Game & Watch.
I understand the choices they made were with a bigger, RVR-sized picture in mind, and wanting people to be able to still run the game smoothly (which it has so far, at least for me) but I'd like to at least attempt these visual tweaks to see if my rig can handle them, rather than simply be denied them.
I remember a certain game that launched recently that, supposedly, had purposly deminished aspects of the game during beta. I believe it was stated that "It was to help with the testing". That game is failing miserably right now.
You know, I hope I am wrong but I can almost promise you, what you see with this beta is what you are going to get come launch.
Just enjoy it for what it is.
400k subscribers is not a failure if you're talking about Conan.
Not even close to failure, so far and away.
Peoples concepts of MMOs and what makes an MMO fail eludes my logics. It just makes no sense half the time.
Im playing the OB and I enjoy the game alot but I agree with the above poster, the animations and sounds need tweaking, most of the time it feels like im swinging through air, but I guess thats something they are gonna polish or should be polishing along with the mob ai/pathing other than that im very pleased with the game.
At this point the graphics in this game looks worst than LOTRO. The animation is simply terrible at times, worst when you're looking at someone at a distance and the popups are insane. The melee combat doesn't look cool and the animations simply lack conviction. The giant black orc swing an axe like he's trying to bat away a pesky fly instead of cleaving someone head off.
My biggest issue with the graphics are that the world looks really dull and dead compared to LotrO, AoC or even WoW... Also it seems like the draw distance is really short becaouse of some kind of fog and there doesnt seem to be any huge views over the landscape that makes you go "Damn that looks awesome"!
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
This is actually one of the strong points for me - the landscapes and huge castles and structures looming over you. But everyone has a different taste
LOTRO had marvelous views I remember: 10/10, but the character animations were very clunky 5/10.
Is WAR worse than LOTRO?
Still waiting for my mail confirmation: 18 hours now and 16 mails send.
I would say that the breathtaking sceneries are in WAR as well. Animations are better than LoTRO with a margin but slightly worse than WoW.
Anti aliasing can be forced through the graphics driver, at least thats how I do it. (I can't play a game without anti aliasing anymore these days)
too bad we can't merge the combat, animations and graphics of AoC in with the game play of WAR. Now that would be a hell of a game.
BTW my machine specs are E8400 OC'ed to 3600MhZ, WinXP with 2 gig ram, and a NVidia 260 OC'ed to 725 core and 2300 memory. I was running everything at the highest setting @1680 x 1050. Specificly what annoyed me was the lack of ingame AA settings and the lighting and textures left a lot to be desired. Quite frankly LoTRO and AoC are much easier on my eyes but LoTRO's MvP leaves something to be desired and AoC just sucks. Stil I won't pay to paly WAR just for the PvP since I was not thrilled by their PvE either.
I miss DAoC
Same here, forcing it in the nvidia drivers for war.exe.
The graphics looks just fine to me kind of if you combine wow with lotro. Yes they is room for improvement especially with regards to character combat animations but in all I find the graphics good enough.