Do you think if WAR looked like Crysis it would run well? With 10 people on the screen? With 50? How about with 200? How many computers would sustain that? At 1920*1200 resolution? Do you really think everyone has a 4870 X2 with 4GB RAM? AoC chokes on many peoples systems during a siege battle. And were talking a max of 40 vs 40. WAR will exceed that, significantly. Therefore it CANNOT look like AoC and remain playable. It just wont happen, so keep dreaming.
Sure. But Lineage 2 had several hundred players on the screen 4 years ago. In 2008-2009 I expect something more than "WOW with some higher res textures".
Now, if only gameplay was good. PVE is bland, and rvr is fun for a while, but for how long? That's my opinion of course. Glad you are enjoying it.
Originally posted by BigMango Originally posted by Annekynn Do you think if WAR looked like Crysis it would run well? With 10 people on the screen? With 50? How about with 200? How many computers would sustain that? At 1920*1200 resolution? Do you really think everyone has a 4870 X2 with 4GB RAM? AoC chokes on many peoples systems during a siege battle. And were talking a max of 40 vs 40. WAR will exceed that, significantly. Therefore it CANNOT look like AoC and remain playable. It just wont happen, so keep dreaming.
Sure. But Lineage 2 had several hundred players on the screen 4 years ago. In 2008-2009 I expect something more than "WOW with some higher res textures". Now, if only gameplay was good. PVE is bland, and rvr is fun for a while, but for how long? That's my opinion of course. Glad you are enjoying it.
4 years ago people predominantly didnt game on wide screen monitors. 1920*1200 was still a dream for most. Now for as low as $250 its affordable to all. Problem is the higher the resolution goes, the more horsepower it takes to power that, which a lot of people sadly do NOT have.
So its one thing to make a preety looking game for 1024*768 or 1280*1024 and its another to have that same game run well at 1920*1200. Were talking an increase from 1.3 million pixels to 2.3 million.
Also another to thing to consider is development time. How long was AoC in the kitchen? 5 years. How long was WAR in the kitchen? Far less (3 or so). So yes they could have delayed the game another year or two and put in a DX10 state of the art engine for 10 million more or whatever it costs.
However as AoC and Crysis show, graphics are NOT a guarantee of success. So why take the gamble? Why push the bleeding edge of technology just to have fancy screenshots that get terrible framerates? Its counter intuitive if you intend to create a Fun and Enjoyable experience for All.
As for your opinion of the enjoyment of PvE and RvR, well my opinion is the complete opposite. And I spent thousands of hours playing DAoC and WoW, so im hardly the noob thats seeing this for the first time.
4 years ago people predominantly didnt game on wide screen monitors. 1920*1200 was still a dream for most. Now for as low as $250 its affordable to all. Problem is the higher the resolution goes, the more horsepower it takes to power that, which a lot of people sadly do NOT have. So its one thing to make a preety looking game for 1024*768 or 1280*1024 and its another to have that same game run well at 1920*1200. Were talking an increase from 1.3 million pixels to 2.3 million.
Yes that's a good point. I'm playing in 1280x1024 on a 19" screen. What screen size do you need to see a real improvement with 1920x1200 (considering anti-aliasing helps the lower resolutions a lot)?
The world is detailed enough for me, but the character models not so much... Even though NPC's I thought were OK. Also, some of the animations could be done better.
Once again, the game has to be able to handle 100s of these character models moving and fighting at the same time. If you make them too detailed, your framerate will choke and your experience will grind to a very unpleasant halt. Necessary compromise.
Originally posted by BigMango Originally posted by Annekynn 4 years ago people predominantly didnt game on wide screen monitors. 1920*1200 was still a dream for most. Now for as low as $250 its affordable to all. Problem is the higher the resolution goes, the more horsepower it takes to power that, which a lot of people sadly do NOT have. So its one thing to make a preety looking game for 1024*768 or 1280*1024 and its another to have that same game run well at 1920*1200. Were talking an increase from 1.3 million pixels to 2.3 million.
Yes that's a good point. I'm playing in 1280x1024 on a 19" screen. What screen size do you need to see a real improvement with 1920x1200 (considering anti-aliasing helps the lower resolutions a lot)?
A 23 or 24" widescreen monitor will give you 1920*1200. Widescreen monitors give you more screen space for your interface and a bigger view of the battlefield, mostly to your sides. Makes the games more immersive.
Anti Aliasing and AF help on any screen and should always be turned on.
frankly who gives a damn. if graphics ment shit people wouldnt play DAoC still or diablo 2. a good game will give you the experience no matter what it "looks like" i think the game is fun and its much like WoW but a better WoW which is good...im sorry if you have a super computer and expect anything u watch to be in 1080 what the F ever resolution and super distance whatever. I have a 5 year old machine and it runs it pretty bad but im having fun in all the scenerios and PDQs and stuff. Also this is the OB and they do have som work to do on it a bit. but never the less. the last thing i look in a game is graphics. i look for game play and polish. People crying about graphics and what not is what ruined console games. Game makers are just oogling over graphics and not the game play. Im having fun and so should everyone else that can run the game decently. I love wow and will probably come back for wotlk but i have no intention of smerking WAR away because i cant see goblins 5000 yards away.
while i can say i dont mind much about graphic. tho i have high end pc.. game like this looks good on good old pc you have.. it looks decent on something as 17 monitor. but it does look bit of crap.. on high end pc.. when gamer is used to top line visuals.. on high end monitor..
yes game looks like lotro.. thats the first thought i had. apart it have 1/10 of details lotro have.. man even wow looks better..
Well, I haven't played the game yet, but I see what the issue is from the first two screenshots.
The draw distance is too short. I don't know if that is the settings that are limited due to OB, or settings you have set in the game options itself.
Either way, it looks pretty poor to me, and that doesn't make me feel good.
Draw distance = the reason everything in the nr distance is greyed out. All that should be in decent detail, although obviously not as clear/sharp as the foreground.
I'll know more if I ever getting ****ING GOA to send my email activation - Jesus .
Personally for my enjoyment gameplay is king. Graphics are nice, but I certainly would not buy a game with great graphics and poorly executed gameplay. On the other hand if the graphics are run of the mill yet acceptable, and the game play is fun, that is the game I'm going to be buying and playing. I don't mind games like Crysis, I think for my enjoyment they did a serviceable job with gameplay and exceptional graphics. I do think that WAR will be a game I spend more hours playing than Crysis though. In that case, as far as my tastes are concerned, Mythic has made the right decisions in game design between massive combat performance, and graphical acceptability. I can understand why other people might not agree with the choices. However, WAR is what it is, like it or not. Those people who don't like it will have to get past their issues with WAR, and move on to play something which suits them better.
Originally posted by Spaceweed10 Well, I haven't played the game yet, but I see what the issue is from the first two screenshots. The draw distance is too short. I don't know if that is the settings that are limited due to OB, or settings you have set in the game options itself. Either way, it looks pretty poor to me, and that doesn't make me feel good. Draw distance = the reason everything in the nr distance is greyed out. All that should be in decent detail, although obviously not as clear/sharp as the foreground. I'll know more if I ever getting ****ING GOA to send my email activation - Jesus .
I agree that the draw distance can be improved, and there are known issues with distant blurry textures and all that. Those will hopefully be resolved in due time.
Honestly the bottom line is people need something and will find something to complain about. For me personally the graphics are fine, and I could really care less about how it looks as long as I am having fun. For others if the game doesn't look like Crysis on max then they think it sucks. To each thier own.
Well honestly for me if your going to make a new game make it new. Im not saying graphics but make me feel like im in a new gaming world not the same ole same ole im used to. And put well we are RvR oriented so we are differant. I played the beta and it was same thing as the rest of the mmos out there. No voice acting on quests, just good ole click and read everything. Run kill that monster and come back hmm oh yeah i did that already but no you can level killing players hmm ok. Hey you die hmm ok hey you die hmm ok. Nothing has grabed me to this game. And yes you can argue well all games are like that well yeah thats true but the games that keep me are ones with substance and individuality which i have yet to see.
another subject. So yes Graphics are plain, I had good framerate on graphical games so i wasnt QQ there so give me the option to play with crappy graphics and lett me have the option to maybe have them look half descent sorry if thats to hard to ask. But as a person who has a nice powerful PC id like to use it on NEW games.
I think the graphics are quite nice, despite playing on the Performance setting. Perhaps I am not bothered by the cartoony models and colors as much because I am fully aware that the art direction is based upon the Games Workshop miniatures and supporting Warhammer game props; a fact that seems to elude the ultra-photorealism critics.
Drev
"If MMORPG players were around when God said, "Let their be light" they'd have called the light gay, and plunged the universe back into darkness by squatting their nutsacks over it." -Luke McKinney, The 7 Biggest Dick Moves in the History of Online Gaming
"In the end, SWG may have been more potential and promise than fulfilled expectation. But I'd rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity." -Raph Koster
The graphics and animation on the character models are not good. Everywhere else they are decent. But whoever handled the character models just downright sucks or intentially made them to look something terrible.
while i can say i dont mind much about graphic. tho i have high end pc.. game like this looks good on good old pc you have.. it looks decent on something as 17 monitor. but it does look bit of crap.. on high end pc.. when gamer is used to top line visuals.. on high end monitor..
yes game looks like lotro.. thats the first thought i had. apart it have 1/10 of details lotro have.. man even wow looks better..
I have a decent rig and I think the game looks absolutely fine and sets the mood very well. I've played Crisis on this rig on high to the end, played AoC fine on max settings and many other games. So just because people have a high end rig doesn't mean it looks like instant crap.
In my opinion the game looks fantastic, slightly better than Lotro and if i remember there was a lot people creaming over it's graphics. As long as it looks like Warhammer, who cares?...
I like WAR but to say the graphic are better the LOTRO is a joke.
The OP is absolutely correct. Most people don't really understand the technical limitations involved with graphics. They simply see games like Crysis and then wonder why every game doesn't look like that.
One thing that has been discussed is how graphics can't be as stunning as AoC if you want to get dozens or even hundreds of players fighting on the screen without fps dropping into the single digits. (AoC has learned that themselves.)
Something that has not been mentioned is a secondary element: WAR is built around lots and lots of PvP. That means that it needs lots of people playing in order to be successful, and that in turn requires that minimum system requirements be relatively low in order to allow the largest possible audience to get into the game.
If Mythic had tried to build WAR with AoC's graphical impressiveness, they would have created a game that couldn't sustain large enough populations to keep the PvP fun. The game would end up struggling. In the end, they were wise to set the bar above WoW while still keeping the minimum system requirements as low as possible.
Comments
Sure. But Lineage 2 had several hundred players on the screen 4 years ago. In 2008-2009 I expect something more than "WOW with some higher res textures".
Now, if only gameplay was good. PVE is bland, and rvr is fun for a while, but for how long? That's my opinion of course. Glad you are enjoying it.
Sure. But Lineage 2 had several hundred players on the screen 4 years ago. In 2008-2009 I expect something more than "WOW with some higher res textures".
Now, if only gameplay was good. PVE is bland, and rvr is fun for a while, but for how long? That's my opinion of course. Glad you are enjoying it.
4 years ago people predominantly didnt game on wide screen monitors. 1920*1200 was still a dream for most. Now for as low as $250 its affordable to all. Problem is the higher the resolution goes, the more horsepower it takes to power that, which a lot of people sadly do NOT have.
So its one thing to make a preety looking game for 1024*768 or 1280*1024 and its another to have that same game run well at 1920*1200. Were talking an increase from 1.3 million pixels to 2.3 million.
Also another to thing to consider is development time. How long was AoC in the kitchen? 5 years. How long was WAR in the kitchen? Far less (3 or so). So yes they could have delayed the game another year or two and put in a DX10 state of the art engine for 10 million more or whatever it costs.
However as AoC and Crysis show, graphics are NOT a guarantee of success. So why take the gamble? Why push the bleeding edge of technology just to have fancy screenshots that get terrible framerates? Its counter intuitive if you intend to create a Fun and Enjoyable experience for All.
As for your opinion of the enjoyment of PvE and RvR, well my opinion is the complete opposite. And I spent thousands of hours playing DAoC and WoW, so im hardly the noob thats seeing this for the first time.
I will try WAR out some more (I have only played a dark elf). What is in your opinions the best looking starting area, so I can roll a new char there.
Yes that's a good point. I'm playing in 1280x1024 on a 19" screen. What screen size do you need to see a real improvement with 1920x1200 (considering anti-aliasing helps the lower resolutions a lot)?
I agree w/Faelen.
The world is detailed enough for me, but the character models not so much... Even though NPC's I thought were OK.
Also, some of the animations could be done better.
Definately Chaos and check out the two cities, good stuff.
If you are not accustomed to eating kiwi, go slow at first.
Once again, the game has to be able to handle 100s of these character models moving and fighting at the same time. If you make them too detailed, your framerate will choke and your experience will grind to a very unpleasant halt. Necessary compromise.
Yes that's a good point. I'm playing in 1280x1024 on a 19" screen. What screen size do you need to see a real improvement with 1920x1200 (considering anti-aliasing helps the lower resolutions a lot)?
A 23 or 24" widescreen monitor will give you 1920*1200. Widescreen monitors give you more screen space for your interface and a bigger view of the battlefield, mostly to your sides. Makes the games more immersive.
Anti Aliasing and AF help on any screen and should always be turned on.
frankly who gives a damn. if graphics ment shit people wouldnt play DAoC still or diablo 2. a good game will give you the experience no matter what it "looks like" i think the game is fun and its much like WoW but a better WoW which is good...im sorry if you have a super computer and expect anything u watch to be in 1080 what the F ever resolution and super distance whatever. I have a 5 year old machine and it runs it pretty bad but im having fun in all the scenerios and PDQs and stuff. Also this is the OB and they do have som work to do on it a bit. but never the less. the last thing i look in a game is graphics. i look for game play and polish. People crying about graphics and what not is what ruined console games. Game makers are just oogling over graphics and not the game play. Im having fun and so should everyone else that can run the game decently. I love wow and will probably come back for wotlk but i have no intention of smerking WAR away because i cant see goblins 5000 yards away.
Don't have any problems with the game graphics. The graphics looks crisp and very well done.
while i can say i dont mind much about graphic. tho i have high end pc.. game like this looks good on good old pc you have.. it looks decent on something as 17 monitor. but it does look bit of crap.. on high end pc.. when gamer is used to top line visuals.. on high end monitor..
yes game looks like lotro.. thats the first thought i had. apart it have 1/10 of details lotro have.. man even wow looks better..
The graphics look great to me. I love this game!
Well, I haven't played the game yet, but I see what the issue is from the first two screenshots.
The draw distance is too short. I don't know if that is the settings that are limited due to OB, or settings you have set in the game options itself.
Either way, it looks pretty poor to me, and that doesn't make me feel good.
Draw distance = the reason everything in the nr distance is greyed out. All that should be in decent detail, although obviously not as clear/sharp as the foreground.
I'll know more if I ever getting ****ING GOA to send my email activation - Jesus
.
Personally for my enjoyment gameplay is king. Graphics are nice, but I certainly would not buy a game with great graphics and poorly executed gameplay. On the other hand if the graphics are run of the mill yet acceptable, and the game play is fun, that is the game I'm going to be buying and playing. I don't mind games like Crysis, I think for my enjoyment they did a serviceable job with gameplay and exceptional graphics. I do think that WAR will be a game I spend more hours playing than Crysis though. In that case, as far as my tastes are concerned, Mythic has made the right decisions in game design between massive combat performance, and graphical acceptability. I can understand why other people might not agree with the choices. However, WAR is what it is, like it or not. Those people who don't like it will have to get past their issues with WAR, and move on to play something which suits them better.
I hope this helps.
I agree that the draw distance can be improved, and there are known issues with distant blurry textures and all that. Those will hopefully be resolved in due time.
Well honestly for me if your going to make a new game make it new. Im not saying graphics but make me feel like im in a new gaming world not the same ole same ole im used to. And put well we are RvR oriented so we are differant. I played the beta and it was same thing as the rest of the mmos out there. No voice acting on quests, just good ole click and read everything. Run kill that monster and come back hmm oh yeah i did that already but no you can level killing players hmm ok. Hey you die hmm ok hey you die hmm ok. Nothing has grabed me to this game. And yes you can argue well all games are like that well yeah thats true but the games that keep me are ones with substance and individuality which i have yet to see.
another subject. So yes Graphics are plain, I had good framerate on graphical games so i wasnt QQ there so give me the option to play with crappy graphics and lett me have the option to maybe have them look half descent sorry if thats to hard to ask. But as a person who has a nice powerful PC id like to use it on NEW games.
I think the graphics are quite nice, despite playing on the Performance setting. Perhaps I am not bothered by the cartoony models and colors as much because I am fully aware that the art direction is based upon the Games Workshop miniatures and supporting Warhammer game props; a fact that seems to elude the ultra-photorealism critics.
Drev
"If MMORPG players were around when God said, "Let their be light" they'd have called the light gay, and plunged the universe back into darkness by squatting their nutsacks over it."
-Luke McKinney, The 7 Biggest Dick Moves in the History of Online Gaming
"In the end, SWG may have been more potential and promise than fulfilled expectation. But I'd rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
-Raph Koster
I have a shitty laptop.
No graphical lag.
Ppl keep saying this but I cant find any official word on it ..... can someone confirm this ??
I.E point me to a link besides ppl in forums saying it ??
I hope its true ofc
"Freedom is just another name for nothing left to lose" - Janis Joplin
.jpg)
The graphics and animation on the character models are not good. Everywhere else they are decent. But whoever handled the character models just downright sucks or intentially made them to look something terrible.
I have a decent rig and I think the game looks absolutely fine and sets the mood very well. I've played Crisis on this rig on high to the end, played AoC fine on max settings and many other games. So just because people have a high end rig doesn't mean it looks like instant crap.
I like WAR but to say the graphic are better the LOTRO is a joke.
The OP is absolutely correct. Most people don't really understand the technical limitations involved with graphics. They simply see games like Crysis and then wonder why every game doesn't look like that.
One thing that has been discussed is how graphics can't be as stunning as AoC if you want to get dozens or even hundreds of players fighting on the screen without fps dropping into the single digits. (AoC has learned that themselves.)
Something that has not been mentioned is a secondary element: WAR is built around lots and lots of PvP. That means that it needs lots of people playing in order to be successful, and that in turn requires that minimum system requirements be relatively low in order to allow the largest possible audience to get into the game.
If Mythic had tried to build WAR with AoC's graphical impressiveness, they would have created a game that couldn't sustain large enough populations to keep the PvP fun. The game would end up struggling. In the end, they were wise to set the bar above WoW while still keeping the minimum system requirements as low as possible.
Yep. . .you are exactly right.
_______
|___
\_______/
=
|X| \*........*/ |X|
|X|_________|X|
You wouldn't understand