Like that cartoony nasty game World of Warcraft. Yup, people just hate that cartoony look and won't have anything to do with it.
Game play is all. If the game is bad, who cares what it looks like.
Oh you missed the point by far. Warcraft was always cartoony since the first game was released and WOW having cartoony graphics just kept its originality. It didn't feel akward or hard to adopt, it felt like wacraft as it was expected. On the other hand SW was not originaly cartoony and it does feel akward to immerse yourself in the story with cartoony characters, thus so many complaints. Well, that would make sense unless your first intro to SW story was that ugly cartoon and origins of Warcraft and Star Wars date way back while your existence was not even planned.
ALL the MMO's have cartoony graphics, just of different styles. The sooner a person accepts that, the happier they are. And frankly, I loath WoW's graphics.
played several starwars games in the past, know the 6 movies and a few books. how i see the starwars universe things like clone wars or some of the texture art in swtor have little overall value.
i rate gameplay generally over graphics and like to play old games or to play some newer games in low texture settings. while the technical quality of the models and landscape is good in swtor(texture resolution, consistency, polygon count...) i dont think many colors and character design (mainly the male headmodels) suit starwars.
star wars is a more serious or realistic theme - which has its own rules, looks, sounds, behaviors. the screens and vids i saw about swtor are in general too comic looking, many characters look somehow metrosexy or gay or anime in a way i dont see fitting in the star wars setting.
there could be a line where graphics influence gameplay because it goes in another direction as the gameplay or the overall theme. in my opinion with this game this is the case: some texturework and colors i would describe as an opposite to star wars in general - at least how i picture it - and think star wars has pictured itself and what it represents or was created.
so even if the gameplay would be around the good mmorpgs on release, some models and textures make the game worse for several people.
there are swtor developers who have or had not the right feeling for star wars, or were trying to artificially forcing something for trends or younger audience who might prefer "funny exaggerated" settings ? compared to most clone wars pictures i found while writing this, the damage in swtor is somehow overseeable. and there are good screenshots of swtor, so maybe how hard could it get to walk around the more "ugly" things when playing or how many possibilities do we have within the options menue
How can GW 2 , FF14 look so good models, and swtor look pretty average and even bad? Its Bioware they should have what it takes to make animations and char models look as awsome as GW2.
They are doing Blizzard's thing - low specs to suit more PC owners.
So are Guild Wars 2 and Final Fantasy XIV, they just didn't dump a toony art direction on top of the primitive graphics.
Favorites: EQ, EVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CU, Pantheon
Originally posted by Saerain Originally posted by MMO_Doubter
Originally posted by Besttheiswow
How can GW 2 , FF14 look so good models, and swtor look pretty average and even bad? Its Bioware they should have what it takes to make animations and char models look as awsome as GW2.
They are doing Blizzard's thing - low specs to suit more PC owners. So are Guild Wars 2 and Final Fantasy XIV, they just didn't dump a toony art direction on top of the primitive graphics.
Guild Wars 2 looks pretty bland, definitely not worthy of being discussed in the same sentence as FF14.
FF14 on the other hand is NOT dumbed down for your average PC. The game isn't being made with PCs in mind period, it's for the PS3 after all.
And the PS3 on average, is significantly more powerful than your average computer.
So neither of your points stand. GW2 is bleh, FF14 has awesome graphics because it's a PS3 game first.
You people should be careful beating on those straw men like that, they may one day start beating back.
How can GW 2 , FF14 look so good models, and swtor look pretty average and even bad? Its Bioware they should have what it takes to make animations and char models look as awsome as GW2.
They are doing Blizzard's thing - low specs to suit more PC owners.
So are Guild Wars 2 and Final Fantasy XIV, they just didn't dump a toony art direction on top of the primitive graphics.
Guild Wars 2 looks pretty bland, definitely not worthy of being discussed in the same sentence as FF14.
FF14 on the other hand is NOT dumbed down for your average PC. The game isn't being made with PCs in mind period, it's for the PS3 after all.
And the PS3 on average, is significantly more powerful than your average computer.
So neither of your points stand. GW2 is bleh, FF14 has awesome graphics because it's a PS3 game first.
You people should be careful beating on those straw men like that, they may one day start beating back.
While I won't disagree that PS3 might stand above average PC worldwide, I will just say that PS3, including any other console, can go hide in the corner comparing to my PC specs and graphics (and I don't own a beast really). Honestly, spending just about the same amount of money you would on PS3 you could as easily get a PC config that would go far beyond PS3 graphic perforamance capabilities. It is just easier to buy,plug and play a console than to spend time analyzing the best PC components before purchase, I know. But don't be delusional that you got the best deal out of it. Consols are not the best way to play games, they are just advertised so.
While I won't disagree that PS3 might stand above average PC worldwide, I will just say that PS3, including any other console, can go hide in the corner comparing to my PC specs and graphics (and I don't own a beast really). Honestly, spending just about the same amount of money you would on PS3 you could as easily get a PC config that would go far beyond PS3 graphic perforamance capabilities. It is just easier to buy,plug and play a console than to spend time analyzing the best PC components before purchase, I know. But don't be delusional that you got the best deal out of it. Consols are not the best way to play games, they are just advertised so.
I Dare you to find a PC with similar specs or better as PS3 for the same price. <300€/250$? Yeah, bro.
PS3 is as cheap hardware as you can get.
No matter how much you "analyze" you won't be able to get a proper PC for less than that. No. Way.
Windows alone costs 1/3rd (if not more) of a PS3. Who is the delusional one here?
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I don't know I actually feel the opposite, I do think the faces and such look a bit stiff. However I like the style they used overall. I don't think it's cartoony as much as it's comic style (there is a difference, heroic stances, chizzled faces and muscle tone, etc...), similar to champions without the outline of course. Animations seemed fine to me as well, still a little rough, but it seems the game still has some ground to cover in that regard.
Lets also not forget, this is still early footage we're seeing, nothing seems to be considered in a finalized state. Graphics very well could improve over the next year.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
one thing overly dissapointing about this game so far is the look and feel from the gameplay. Im not into over realism but the character models seem to have no attraction to me at all.
the latest combat videos just makes me want to vomit.
so , just out of curiosity i am wondering what everyone else thinks of the graphics swtor/biowar is gonna put out. Personally, im teetering on not buying based on the character models alone, i mean , to me, they are just extremely ugly and the lightsabers literally look like a raver's glow stick...just not impressed so far. i just expected more from bioware's art department.
the landscapes look amazing, but the characters imo look horribly rendered and even more horribly designed.
curious on other's thoughts.
Yes and no.
Age of Conan , made a realistic game, with somewhat realistic char .
That game was and is still soules , IMOP.
I think its going to be great on what they are doing, and i do not realy care that much how they look, as long as you get a game with a soul.
And the PS3 on average, is significantly more powerful than your average computer.
So neither of your points stand. GW2 is bleh, FF14 has awesome graphics because it's a PS3 game first.
You people should be careful beating on those straw men like that, they may one day start beating back.
Who fed you that load of garbage? PS3's and Xbox 360s are considerably less powerful than your average gaming desktop. There is a reason that games always look better when they are ported to PCs. Hell my PC alone could do the work of 2 PS3s w/out breaking a sweat.
If your going to thump your chest like you know something you might want to actually be atleast partially correct. That was just embarrassing.
And the PS3 on average, is significantly more powerful than your average computer.
So neither of your points stand. GW2 is bleh, FF14 has awesome graphics because it's a PS3 game first.
You people should be careful beating on those straw men like that, they may one day start beating back.
Who fed you that load of garbage? PS3's and Xbox 360s are considerably less powerful than your average gaming desktop. There is a reason that games always look better when they are ported to PCs.
If your going to thump your chest like you know something you might want to actually be atleast partially correct. That was just embarrassing.
I completely agree with that. I don't own a PS3, but I do own an xbox 360. It can't even remotely compare to my computer in graphics, sound or power. It also has alot of problems because of the cheap parts it was made with. It makes this loud grinding noise that apparently comes from the hard drive being such a piece of garbage and is common with 90% of xbox 360's.
Though I can say it does play a dvd and give a good hd picture.
My computer doesn't make a grinding noise. And it does alot more.
And the PS3 on average, is significantly more powerful than your average computer.
So neither of your points stand. GW2 is bleh, FF14 has awesome graphics because it's a PS3 game first.
You people should be careful beating on those straw men like that, they may one day start beating back.
Who fed you that load of garbage? PS3's and Xbox 360s are considerably less powerful than your average gaming desktop. There is a reason that games always look better when they are ported to PCs. Hell my PC alone could do the work of 2 PS3s w/out breaking a sweat.
If your going to thump your chest like you know something you might want to actually be atleast partially correct. That was just embarrassing.
Well done missing the point entirely...
He said nothing about PS3's being More powerful than PC's, but on average, >most people have PC's which are weaker than PS3's<. Not everyone is a computer enthusiast who updates his rig every few years. Most people are not like that.
There is a reason most PC MMO's look like shit on the PC from the start: because the companies want everyone to be able to play the game. If you make the game for PS3, you can make it just as good as PS3 hardware allows.. and I can assure you that is a lot more than what SW: TOR demands from your PC.
The potential with multi-platform releases is that while you can get a console and play the game cheap for decent graphics, you can also buy a 1k PC and play the game on even higher settings, if you can afford it (or care).
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
While I won't disagree that PS3 might stand above average PC worldwide, I will just say that PS3, including any other console, can go hide in the corner comparing to my PC specs and graphics (and I don't own a beast really). Honestly, spending just about the same amount of money you would on PS3 you could as easily get a PC config that would go far beyond PS3 graphic perforamance capabilities. It is just easier to buy,plug and play a console than to spend time analyzing the best PC components before purchase, I know. But don't be delusional that you got the best deal out of it. Consols are not the best way to play games, they are just advertised so.
I Dare you to find a PC with similar specs or better as PS3 for the same price. <300€/250$? Yeah, bro.
PS3 is as cheap hardware as you can get.
No matter how much you "analyze" you won't be able to get a proper PC for less than that. No. Way.
Windows alone costs 1/3rd (if not more) of a PS3. Who is the delusional one here?
First of all, if you are not familiar with GPU/CPU role in gameplay performance I highly recommend visiting this site before anything else:
PS3's GPU is based on ancient GF 7800 GTX with slight improvements that places it somehwere bethween 7800 and 7900 series you can quickly peak at ebay and check prices. You can get GF 7900 GTX for as low as $20.50 and 7800 GTX for $9.99! Sorry but I just couldn't find those GPUs selling on online retail shops anymore though checking antique shops might be a good idea too.
Guess what CPU is not where PS3 shines too! Here is the link:
It is a lot of read but did you seriously expect me to do all the homework for you? I dare you investigate yourself and reevaluate your point of view regarding PS3.
And the PS3 on average, is significantly more powerful than your average computer.
So neither of your points stand. GW2 is bleh, FF14 has awesome graphics because it's a PS3 game first.
You people should be careful beating on those straw men like that, they may one day start beating back.
Who fed you that load of garbage? PS3's and Xbox 360s are considerably less powerful than your average gaming desktop. There is a reason that games always look better when they are ported to PCs. Hell my PC alone could do the work of 2 PS3s w/out breaking a sweat.
If your going to thump your chest like you know something you might want to actually be atleast partially correct. That was just embarrassing.
Well done missing the point entirely...
He said nothing about PS3's being More powerful than PC's, but on average, >most people have PC's which are weaker than PS3's<. Not everyone is a computer enthusiast who updates his rig every few years. Most people are not like that.
There is a reason most PC MMO's look like shit on the PC from the start: because the companies want everyone to be able to play the game. If you make the game for PS3, you can make it just as good as PS3 hardware allows.. and I can assure you that is a lot more than what SW: TOR demands from your PC.
The potential with multi-platform releases is that while you can get a console and play the game cheap for decent graphics, you can also buy a 1k PC and play the game on even higher settings, if you can afford it (or care).
Not to mention for compatibility sake, you don't have to worry about drivers, background processes etc. when running games on consoles. Visually the engines get optimized for the system you're running. They balance the textures to the performance of the system, whereas on a PC you may have to change or tweak settings eventhough you'll get a better looking game aesthetically for the most part, it doesn't mean that a console version would be graphically lacking to such a degree in comparison that it would ruin enjoyment of the game.
Currently TOR could have better character models, but so far their level design is some of the best I've ever seen.
And the PS3 on average, is significantly more powerful than your average computer.
So neither of your points stand. GW2 is bleh, FF14 has awesome graphics because it's a PS3 game first.
You people should be careful beating on those straw men like that, they may one day start beating back.
Who fed you that load of garbage? PS3's and Xbox 360s are considerably less powerful than your average gaming desktop. There is a reason that games always look better when they are ported to PCs.
If your going to thump your chest like you know something you might want to actually be atleast partially correct. That was just embarrassing.
I completely agree with that. I don't own a PS3, but I do own an xbox 360. It can't even remotely compare to my computer in graphics, sound or power. It also has alot of problems because of the cheap parts it was made with. It makes this loud grinding noise that apparently comes from the hard drive being such a piece of garbage and is common with 90% of xbox 360's.
Though I can say it does play a dvd and give a good hd picture.
My computer doesn't make a grinding noise. And it does alot more.
The average PC is bought at Best Buy or walmart comes with a crappy GPU and is usually equipped with the bare minimum memory to run. Thats a big reason why WOW remains popular as everyone buying these BB and walmart PC's can run it. Same with the sims series, same with the Civ series, etc...
On average a PS3 or 360 is more powerful as well as more cost efficient. As they do what they do well, with little effort required by the end user. That's why PC game sections are one aisle in most stores (if that) and consoles have multiple aisles. They sell a lot more units, because more people buy consoles.
Yes my PC is a beast compared to any console. The problem is average people don't buy a PC like mine at most they buy a cheap pre-built PC (3-500) and put a cheap GPU in it (40-100).. That's the typical gaming rig.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
While I won't disagree that PS3 might stand above average PC worldwide, I will just say that PS3, including any other console, can go hide in the corner comparing to my PC specs and graphics (and I don't own a beast really). Honestly, spending just about the same amount of money you would on PS3 you could as easily get a PC config that would go far beyond PS3 graphic perforamance capabilities. It is just easier to buy,plug and play a console than to spend time analyzing the best PC components before purchase, I know. But don't be delusional that you got the best deal out of it. Consols are not the best way to play games, they are just advertised so.
I Dare you to find a PC with similar specs or better as PS3 for the same price. <300€/250$? Yeah, bro.
PS3 is as cheap hardware as you can get.
No matter how much you "analyze" you won't be able to get a proper PC for less than that. No. Way.
Windows alone costs 1/3rd (if not more) of a PS3. Who is the delusional one here?
First of all, if you are not familiar with GPU/CPU role in gameplay performance I highly recommend visiting this site before anything else:
PS3's GPU is based on ancient GF 7800 GTX with slight improvements that places it somehwere bethween 7800 and 7900 series you can quickly peak at ebay and check prices. You can get GF 7900 GTX for as low as $20.50 and 7800 GTX for $9.99! Sorry but I just couldn't find those GPUs selling on online retail shops anymore though checking antique shops might be a good idea too.
Guess what CPU is not where PS3 shines too! Here is the link:
It is a lot of read but did you seriously expect me to do all the homework for you? I dare you investigate yourself and reevaluate your point of view regarding PS3.
Yeah but the average pc sold in stores doesn't even have the power of a 7900. That's what he is saying, you can buy parts and upgrade any PC to be more powerful than a PS3 as long as it supports an 8800 or better chipset. The problem is once you start doing this, the price goes up and to play ME3 at the highest visuals or a game like FO3 you're looking at paying at least 6-900 depending on the deals you find.
A 3-500 dollar pc with an added 20 dollar card will net you poor visuals, most of the time things like shadows bloom etc.. will have to be toned down or shut off to run at a decent pace, you're better off on a console.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm on the fence sorta about the art of the agme so far. I like the environment art and the tech and gear (and lightsabers) so far, but the character models are iffy, especially the heads/faces...but I do like the character appearances better than WoW's character visuals, which I could never get into (human faces are especially terrible). THe character art isn't enough to turn me off, but I hope the gameplay and overall feel of the game is good enough to overcome the poorly stylized character art...and I sure hope it supports Eyefinity hehe, I imagine the game would look pretty sweet on a triple monitor setup.
He said nothing about PS3's being More powerful than PC's, but on average, >most people have PC's which are weaker than PS3's<. Not everyone is a computer enthusiast who updates his rig every few years. Most people are not like that.
There is a reason most PC MMO's look like shit on the PC from the start: because the companies want everyone to be able to play the game. If you make the game for PS3, you can make it just as good as PS3 hardware allows.. and I can assure you that is a lot more than what SW: TOR demands from your PC.
The potential with multi-platform releases is that while you can get a console and play the game cheap for decent graphics, you can also buy a 1k PC and play the game on even higher settings, if you can afford it (or care).
That's why PC games have graphical option settings and multiple resolutions, . You make the game look as good as your PC can handle.
MMO graphics are scaled down because of limitations of scalable persistent worlds and texture loading issues when your trying to track hundreds or thousands of different clients that are all remotely connected. For the very same reasons, a MMO game designed on the PS3 will never look as sharp as a single player game designed for the PS3.
By your reasoning, all PC games would have substandard graphics compared to PS3 games in order to bring in the most potential buyers.. And yet nearly every single player game that is released primarily for the PC has graphics that are exceedingly better than anything you will find on a console.
Your not selling me on this whole PS3 designed games have better graphics than PC designed games. It's not true at all. And that's the only point I was arguing, I don't really give a damn about price comparisons.
*as a side note, a PS3 will have nowhere near the power to run SWTOR at 2560x1600 with all the graphical settings maxed
Yeah but the average pc sold in stores doesn't even have the power of a 7900. That's what he is saying, you can buy parts and upgrade any PC to be more powerful than a PS3 as long as it supports an 8800 or better chipset. The problem is once you start doing this, the price goes up and to play ME3 at the highest visuals or a game like FO3 you're looking at paying at least 6-900 depending on the deals you find.
A 3-500 dollar pc with an added 20 dollar card will net you poor visuals, most of the time things like shadows bloom etc.. will have to be toned down or shut off to run at a decent pace, you're better off on a console.
As Bioware have said many times "Please keep in mind this is a work in progress".
Having seen pre alpha and alpha build clients of their games previously and compared them to the finished thing they usually improve their graphics and animations a lot at the end of their dev cycle.
That said I to was a bit dissapointed that they went for the cartoon style of things, but I can understand why, aslong as there are lots of options to increase the graphics and effects it should be ok, but I hope they realise that the human model "proportions" are really retarded.
That said if it turns out to be a wow in space I wont be too disaapointed, I got 4 years of fun out of wow and ToR will add a Bioware told story to the equasion so I think I will manage to enjoy it once I get used to the graphics.
Comments
Oh you missed the point by far. Warcraft was always cartoony since the first game was released and WOW having cartoony graphics just kept its originality. It didn't feel akward or hard to adopt, it felt like wacraft as it was expected. On the other hand SW was not originaly cartoony and it does feel akward to immerse yourself in the story with cartoony characters, thus so many complaints. Well, that would make sense unless your first intro to SW story was that ugly cartoon and origins of Warcraft and Star Wars date way back while your existence was not even planned.
ALL the MMO's have cartoony graphics, just of different styles. The sooner a person accepts that, the happier they are. And frankly, I loath WoW's graphics.
played several starwars games in the past, know the 6 movies and a few books.
how i see the starwars universe things like clone wars or some of the texture
art in swtor have little overall value.
i rate gameplay generally over graphics and like to play old games
or to play some newer games in low texture settings. while the technical quality
of the models and landscape is good in swtor(texture resolution, consistency,
polygon count...) i dont think many colors and character design (mainly the male
headmodels) suit starwars.
star wars is a more serious or realistic theme - which has its own rules, looks, sounds, behaviors.
the screens and vids i saw about swtor are in general too comic looking, many
characters look somehow metrosexy or gay or anime in a way i dont see
fitting in the star wars setting.
there could be a line where graphics influence gameplay because it goes in another
direction as the gameplay or the overall theme.
in my opinion with this game this is the case: some texturework and colors i would describe as an opposite to star wars in general - at least how i picture it - and think
star wars has pictured itself and what it represents or was created.
so even if the gameplay would be around the good mmorpgs on release, some models
and textures make the game worse for several people.
there are swtor developers who have or had not the right feeling for star wars, or were trying to artificially forcing something for trends or younger audience who might prefer "funny exaggerated" settings ?
compared to most clone wars pictures i found while writing this, the damage in swtor is
somehow overseeable. and there are good screenshots of swtor, so maybe how
hard could it get to walk around the more "ugly" things when playing or how many
possibilities do we have within the options menue
The character models could look alot better but it is tollerable. It isn't a game breaker for me. I just hope the armor in the game looks good.
So are Guild Wars 2 and Final Fantasy XIV, they just didn't dump a toony art direction on top of the primitive graphics.
So are Guild Wars 2 and Final Fantasy XIV, they just didn't dump a toony art direction on top of the primitive graphics.
Guild Wars 2 looks pretty bland, definitely not worthy of being discussed in the same sentence as FF14.
FF14 on the other hand is NOT dumbed down for your average PC. The game isn't being made with PCs in mind period, it's for the PS3 after all.
And the PS3 on average, is significantly more powerful than your average computer.
So neither of your points stand. GW2 is bleh, FF14 has awesome graphics because it's a PS3 game first.
You people should be careful beating on those straw men like that, they may one day start beating back.
Alltern8 Blog | Star Wars Space Combat and The Old Republic | Cryptic Studios - A Pre Post-Mortem | Klingon Preview, STO's Monster Play
While I won't disagree that PS3 might stand above average PC worldwide, I will just say that PS3, including any other console, can go hide in the corner comparing to my PC specs and graphics (and I don't own a beast really). Honestly, spending just about the same amount of money you would on PS3 you could as easily get a PC config that would go far beyond PS3 graphic perforamance capabilities. It is just easier to buy,plug and play a console than to spend time analyzing the best PC components before purchase, I know. But don't be delusional that you got the best deal out of it. Consols are not the best way to play games, they are just advertised so.
i didnt expect this kind of turn around, over the original post.
I Dare you to find a PC with similar specs or better as PS3 for the same price. <300€/250$? Yeah, bro.
PS3 is as cheap hardware as you can get.
No matter how much you "analyze" you won't be able to get a proper PC for less than that. No. Way.
Windows alone costs 1/3rd (if not more) of a PS3. Who is the delusional one here?
I don't know I actually feel the opposite, I do think the faces and such look a bit stiff. However I like the style they used overall. I don't think it's cartoony as much as it's comic style (there is a difference, heroic stances, chizzled faces and muscle tone, etc...), similar to champions without the outline of course. Animations seemed fine to me as well, still a little rough, but it seems the game still has some ground to cover in that regard.
Lets also not forget, this is still early footage we're seeing, nothing seems to be considered in a finalized state. Graphics very well could improve over the next year.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Games always end up looking alot better on your computer than they do via a vid capture, especially alpha release captures.
Yes and no.
Age of Conan , made a realistic game, with somewhat realistic char .
That game was and is still soules , IMOP.
I think its going to be great on what they are doing, and i do not realy care that much how they look, as long as you get a game with a soul.
System Specc
Intel I7 4770K 3,5 ghz
16Gb RAM 1600 mhz
Nvidia GTX 780
Who fed you that load of garbage? PS3's and Xbox 360s are considerably less powerful than your average gaming desktop. There is a reason that games always look better when they are ported to PCs. Hell my PC alone could do the work of 2 PS3s w/out breaking a sweat.
If your going to thump your chest like you know something you might want to actually be atleast partially correct. That was just embarrassing.
I completely agree with that. I don't own a PS3, but I do own an xbox 360. It can't even remotely compare to my computer in graphics, sound or power. It also has alot of problems because of the cheap parts it was made with. It makes this loud grinding noise that apparently comes from the hard drive being such a piece of garbage and is common with 90% of xbox 360's.
Though I can say it does play a dvd and give a good hd picture.
My computer doesn't make a grinding noise. And it does alot more.
Well done missing the point entirely...
He said nothing about PS3's being More powerful than PC's, but on average, >most people have PC's which are weaker than PS3's<. Not everyone is a computer enthusiast who updates his rig every few years. Most people are not like that.
There is a reason most PC MMO's look like shit on the PC from the start: because the companies want everyone to be able to play the game. If you make the game for PS3, you can make it just as good as PS3 hardware allows.. and I can assure you that is a lot more than what SW: TOR demands from your PC.
The potential with multi-platform releases is that while you can get a console and play the game cheap for decent graphics, you can also buy a 1k PC and play the game on even higher settings, if you can afford it (or care).
First of all, if you are not familiar with GPU/CPU role in gameplay performance I highly recommend visiting this site before anything else:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gpu-upgrade,1928.html
Now, starting with whats really is important in achieveing good preformance here is a link that will help you understand how weak actually PS3 GPU is:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1719/9
PS3's GPU is based on ancient GF 7800 GTX with slight improvements that places it somehwere bethween 7800 and 7900 series you can quickly peak at ebay and check prices. You can get GF 7900 GTX for as low as $20.50 and 7800 GTX for $9.99! Sorry but I just couldn't find those GPUs selling on online retail shops anymore though checking antique shops might be a good idea too.
Guess what CPU is not where PS3 shines too! Here is the link:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1647/1
It is a lot of read but did you seriously expect me to do all the homework for you? I dare you investigate yourself and reevaluate your point of view regarding PS3.
Not to mention for compatibility sake, you don't have to worry about drivers, background processes etc. when running games on consoles. Visually the engines get optimized for the system you're running. They balance the textures to the performance of the system, whereas on a PC you may have to change or tweak settings eventhough you'll get a better looking game aesthetically for the most part, it doesn't mean that a console version would be graphically lacking to such a degree in comparison that it would ruin enjoyment of the game.
Currently TOR could have better character models, but so far their level design is some of the best I've ever seen.
the only thing wrong with the graphics to me are the faces
they look like plastic mannequins
they need makeup or something to make them look less dead
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
The average PC is bought at Best Buy or walmart comes with a crappy GPU and is usually equipped with the bare minimum memory to run. Thats a big reason why WOW remains popular as everyone buying these BB and walmart PC's can run it. Same with the sims series, same with the Civ series, etc...
On average a PS3 or 360 is more powerful as well as more cost efficient. As they do what they do well, with little effort required by the end user. That's why PC game sections are one aisle in most stores (if that) and consoles have multiple aisles. They sell a lot more units, because more people buy consoles.
Yes my PC is a beast compared to any console. The problem is average people don't buy a PC like mine at most they buy a cheap pre-built PC (3-500) and put a cheap GPU in it (40-100).. That's the typical gaming rig.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yeah but the average pc sold in stores doesn't even have the power of a 7900. That's what he is saying, you can buy parts and upgrade any PC to be more powerful than a PS3 as long as it supports an 8800 or better chipset. The problem is once you start doing this, the price goes up and to play ME3 at the highest visuals or a game like FO3 you're looking at paying at least 6-900 depending on the deals you find.
A 3-500 dollar pc with an added 20 dollar card will net you poor visuals, most of the time things like shadows bloom etc.. will have to be toned down or shut off to run at a decent pace, you're better off on a console.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm on the fence sorta about the art of the agme so far. I like the environment art and the tech and gear (and lightsabers) so far, but the character models are iffy, especially the heads/faces...but I do like the character appearances better than WoW's character visuals, which I could never get into (human faces are especially terrible). THe character art isn't enough to turn me off, but I hope the gameplay and overall feel of the game is good enough to overcome the poorly stylized character art...and I sure hope it supports Eyefinity hehe, I imagine the game would look pretty sweet on a triple monitor setup.
I kind of like them, but then again, i like the Clone Wars animated series aswell
Far better than SWG imo.
edit: I grew on Starwars aswell, im quite not 32, but not far either so i know where you hail from
That's why PC games have graphical option settings and multiple resolutions, . You make the game look as good as your PC can handle.
MMO graphics are scaled down because of limitations of scalable persistent worlds and texture loading issues when your trying to track hundreds or thousands of different clients that are all remotely connected. For the very same reasons, a MMO game designed on the PS3 will never look as sharp as a single player game designed for the PS3.
By your reasoning, all PC games would have substandard graphics compared to PS3 games in order to bring in the most potential buyers.. And yet nearly every single player game that is released primarily for the PC has graphics that are exceedingly better than anything you will find on a console.
Your not selling me on this whole PS3 designed games have better graphics than PC designed games. It's not true at all. And that's the only point I was arguing, I don't really give a damn about price comparisons.
*as a side note, a PS3 will have nowhere near the power to run SWTOR at 2560x1600 with all the graphical settings maxed
As Bioware have said many times "Please keep in mind this is a work in progress".
Having seen pre alpha and alpha build clients of their games previously and compared them to the finished thing they usually improve their graphics and animations a lot at the end of their dev cycle.
That said I to was a bit dissapointed that they went for the cartoon style of things, but I can understand why, aslong as there are lots of options to increase the graphics and effects it should be ok, but I hope they realise that the human model "proportions" are really retarded.
That said if it turns out to be a wow in space I wont be too disaapointed, I got 4 years of fun out of wow and ToR will add a Bioware told story to the equasion so I think I will manage to enjoy it once I get used to the graphics.