Over time when more info was given I became less and less excited.
Now after seeing:Star Wars: The Old Republic Videos: Combat Dev Diary (6:11) I have some excited back.
Think the overall look and especially the animation are nothing what I have seen before in MMORPG's. will also say the same about GW2.
Don't even put swtor animation up agaist GW2, GW2 make swtor animation look old and dated.
As for not seeing the same type of animations in a mmorpg before,perhaps you need to actually take a look at other si-fi mmorpg that have come out recently.
Like they're trying to imitate AoC but failing miserably.
Umm... GW2's graphics are stylized almost exactly after the original game's. Guild Wars came out before AoC... long before it. They don't need to "copy" from anyone... they have their own talent.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
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.
Umm... SE are not going low-end for FFXIV. Not sure where you got that impression. SE have even said FFXIV will require a pretty hefty system to run it...
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
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.
Im 32 as well. I find the graphics to be good, not great ... but good. They are certainly a ton better than SWG IMO. I played SWG for a while just before they wrecked it, so I don't see why these graphics can't hold me If the gameplay is good. As far as feel for the combat, who knows ... I'd get a better feel If i were actually playing it ... but then again SWG didn't really have spectacular combat either so I'll probably like it.
Compared to other games, ill just have to see when i can actually play it down the road. It does look like they have a bit mroe work to do on it though.
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.
I wouldn't go with those specs if I wanted a system capable of running a current game of, say, the past year or two at least, with any kind of smooth performance.
Video card that's at least 2 generations old now, 1 GIG of DDR2 ram.... that's pretty lowball right there. You would have to sacrifice a lot of the "visual niceties" on that model video card to play newer games... things that would run smoothly on a cheaper console system out of the box. I seriously hope someone with that set up wouldn't expect to be playing any of the newer games on more than mid to low settings with any kind of good framerate. Also don't forget you have all the overhead of running an entire OS behind the scenes on a PC, so you have to accomodate that as well.
If we're going to compare PCs to a given console on any even terms, you'd really have to build a system to match it spec for spec.... or close to it. Someone with a keen understanding of hardware and what all those "numbers" mean to the bottom line performance would be the best candidate for that.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
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.
I wouldn't go with those specs if I wanted a system capable of running a current game of, say, the past year or two at least, with any kind of smooth performance.
Video card that's at least 2 generations old now, 1 GIG of DDR2 ram.... that's pretty lowball right there. You would have to sacrifice a lot of the "visual niceties" on that model video card to play newer games... things that would run smoothly on a cheaper console system out of the box. I seriously hope someone with that set up wouldn't expect to be playing any of the newer games on more than mid to low settings with any kind of good framerate. Also don't forget you have all the overhead of running an entire OS behind the scenes on a PC, so you have to accomodate that as well.
If we're going to compare PCs to a given console on any even terms, you'd really have to build a system to match it spec for spec.... or close to it. Someone with a keen understanding of hardware and what all those "numbers" mean to the bottom line performance would be the best candidate for that.
Quite true. That system frankly sucks. Its old and outdated. You won't be able to play any of the newest games on it (like Crysis and thats a year old). People really need to stop recommending the 8800 for anything. It was really good for its time but we've moved beyond that technology.
Well - basically tech developement moves alot faster than requirements of games. Especially when it comes to MMOPRGs. Crysis may be 1 year old, but it is still one of the key benchmarkers of high visuals. Most games do not require the 2 latest generations of videocards to have nice visuals, and basically it is usually for having Anti-Aliasing and Anisitropic on. High Vram is mostly if you want to have very high resolution and a great fps. 1 GB is still more than enough for most users, if in reality not for all - as it is on the games market.
Buying the latest tech is really overkill, and so is it on your wallet.
When the enemy is driven back, we have failed, and when he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded.
Maybe I'm just not that picky but the character models don't bother me that much. They're not the best but it's not gonna keep me from playing the game.
while the processor is showing its age, and not over clocked....i find it i can handle almost any game on max (minus the real huge hogs like crysis). Maybe i am just really lucky, or maybe cause i am still using win xp.....whatever it is, i am happy my system has lasted as long as it did. other than the vid card, i havent upgraded anything in about 3 years (i actually bought the mobo and proc and ram on 1/10/07...wow).
I am going to upgrade though mobo and proc when SWTOR comes out...cause i am that much of a star wars freak (i bought my first stick of ram when xwing came out so i can play it...100 bucks for 16 megs i think it was on my old 486 dx/66)
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.
I wouldn't go with those specs if I wanted a system capable of running a current game of, say, the past year or two at least, with any kind of smooth performance.
Video card that's at least 2 generations old now, 1 GIG of DDR2 ram.... that's pretty lowball right there. You would have to sacrifice a lot of the "visual niceties" on that model video card to play newer games... things that would run smoothly on a cheaper console system out of the box. I seriously hope someone with that set up wouldn't expect to be playing any of the newer games on more than mid to low settings with any kind of good framerate. Also don't forget you have all the overhead of running an entire OS behind the scenes on a PC, so you have to accomodate that as well.
If we're going to compare PCs to a given console on any even terms, you'd really have to build a system to match it spec for spec.... or close to it. Someone with a keen understanding of hardware and what all those "numbers" mean to the bottom line performance would be the best candidate for that.
Quite true. That system frankly sucks. Its old and outdated. You won't be able to play any of the newest games on it (like Crysis and thats a year old). People really need to stop recommending the 8800 for anything. It was really good for its time but we've moved beyond that technology.
Whatever man.
Just add 2 more gigs of RAM & a little know how & that system can run anything out today on high setting just fine. You really don't need THE BOMB to run games & have fun.
Is the game even in closed beta yet? If not, I wouldn't let the speculation of bad graphics in some combat video bother you, as they are likely to change and get better a great deal as the code gets polished. I could be wrong, of course.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Is the game even in closed beta yet? If not, I wouldn't let the speculation of bad graphics in some combat video bother you, as they are likely to change and get better a great deal as the code gets polished. I could be wrong, of course.
No, its not in closed beta yet. In fact, no one not part of the dev team has played it. But there are certain people on these forums absolutely determined to scare the living crap out of themselves and other people for amusements sake alone. Apparently some of them think they will have nothing to talk about if they don't do this.
I've been replaying KOTOR and KOTOR2 in the last couple weeks....and since doing that, I'm fine with SWTOR's character styles....they seem like an updated version of KOTOR's, which I feel at home with now.
In fact, I'm actually GLAD now that they went this route....otherwise it wouldn't feel like a continuation of the series, which it is in fact supposed to be.
Originally posted by Nekrataal Originally posted by Moirae
Originally posted by WSIMike
Originally posted by SanHor
Originally posted by Malickie
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. GPU: EVGA GeForce 8800 GTX OC - $100 link CPU: Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6500 2.93GHz - $80 link MOBO: ASUS P5QPL - $60 link RAM: Crucial 1GB DDR2 (x2) - $50 link HDD: Seagate - $40 link DVD: LG - $25 link TOTAL: $355
I wouldn't go with those specs if I wanted a system capable of running a current game of, say, the past year or two at least, with any kind of smooth performance. Video card that's at least 2 generations old now, 1 GIG of DDR2 ram.... that's pretty lowball right there. You would have to sacrifice a lot of the "visual niceties" on that model video card to play newer games... things that would run smoothly on a cheaper console system out of the box. I seriously hope someone with that set up wouldn't expect to be playing any of the newer games on more than mid to low settings with any kind of good framerate. Also don't forget you have all the overhead of running an entire OS behind the scenes on a PC, so you have to accomodate that as well. If we're going to compare PCs to a given console on any even terms, you'd really have to build a system to match it spec for spec.... or close to it. Someone with a keen understanding of hardware and what all those "numbers" mean to the bottom line performance would be the best candidate for that. Quite true. That system frankly sucks. Its old and outdated. You won't be able to play any of the newest games on it (like Crysis and thats a year old). People really need to stop recommending the 8800 for anything. It was really good for its time but we've moved beyond that technology. Whatever man. Just add 2 more gigs of RAM & a little know how & that system can run anything out today on high setting just fine. You really don't need THE BOMB to run games & have fun.
8800 won't run anything on high these days.
I had an 8800GTX. Great card. Replaced it when it stopped being able to deliver a top of the the line gaming experience a few years back.
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.
I don't think that TOR is made to attract the original fans, those who are 30+ but to attract those who are 12-20.
If you think about it everything makes sense.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
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.
I don't think that TOR is made to attract the original fans, those who are 30+ but to attract those who are 12-20.
If you think about it everything makes sense.
It attracts ME just fine, and I'm an old bastage. Thing is, as I've said, the game is meant to look like an updated KOTOR.
I find it odd that everyone has always RAVED about KOTOR (and well they should) but NOW they have an issue with the way it looks??
methinks people are whining for the sake of whining.
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.
I wouldn't go with those specs if I wanted a system capable of running a current game of, say, the past year or two at least, with any kind of smooth performance.
Video card that's at least 2 generations old now, 1 GIG of DDR2 ram.... that's pretty lowball right there. You would have to sacrifice a lot of the "visual niceties" on that model video card to play newer games... things that would run smoothly on a cheaper console system out of the box. I seriously hope someone with that set up wouldn't expect to be playing any of the newer games on more than mid to low settings with any kind of good framerate. Also don't forget you have all the overhead of running an entire OS behind the scenes on a PC, so you have to accomodate that as well.
If we're going to compare PCs to a given console on any even terms, you'd really have to build a system to match it spec for spec.... or close to it. Someone with a keen understanding of hardware and what all those "numbers" mean to the bottom line performance would be the best candidate for that.
Quite true. That system frankly sucks. Its old and outdated. You won't be able to play any of the newest games on it (like Crysis and thats a year old). People really need to stop recommending the 8800 for anything. It was really good for its time but we've moved beyond that technology.
Whatever man.
Just add 2 more gigs of RAM & a little know how & that system can run anything out today on high setting just fine. You really don't need THE BOMB to run games & have fun.
8800 won't run anything on high these days.
I had an 8800GTX. Great card. Replaced it when it stopped being able to deliver a top of the the line gaming experience a few years back.
Lets also not forget optimization, which on consoles (where this conversation started) things are optimized for the hardware running it. On PC's this isn't always the case, as it would be an impossible feat.That's why console games even though they have lower specs than most PC's run games with all the bells and whistles turned on well, even newer games.
I'll always go for the PC version first (if there is one, and it's not reported to be a horrble port (Saints row 2 as an example)).
I'm running on that card now, which I plan to upgrade asap, simply because in most games (newer) I can't run them well at anything over medium.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Throughout this thread I've seen so many tear down the GFX of TOR and even GW2. What are we comparing these games to, to say they have horrible GFX? TOR looks like a new KOTOR with better lighting, more detail and greater FX. GW2 looks very good IMO in terms of visual presentation (so far). Are they at Crysis lvl? No, then again what MMO has ever been? These are MMO's afterall, the newest gfx tech isn't exactly kosher to MMO tech.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Throughout this thread I've seen so many tear down the GFX of TOR and even GW2. What are we comparing these games to, to say they have horrible GFX? TOR looks like a new KOTOR with better lighting, more detail and greater FX. GW2 looks very good IMO in terms of visual presentation (so far). Are they at Crysis lvl? No, then again what MMO has ever been? These are MMO's afterall, the newest gfx tech isn't exactly kosher to MMO tech.
The top 3 MMO's of this and next year. TOR, GW, FFXIV.
Neither is at Crysis level, but damn, one could argue that TOR isn't on WoW level. That is just unacceptable.
But yes, Star Wars, Bioware "different art style" blah blah justifies it all.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Throughout this thread I've seen so many tear down the GFX of TOR and even GW2. What are we comparing these games to, to say they have horrible GFX? TOR looks like a new KOTOR with better lighting, more detail and greater FX. GW2 looks very good IMO in terms of visual presentation (so far). Are they at Crysis lvl? No, then again what MMO has ever been? These are MMO's afterall, the newest gfx tech isn't exactly kosher to MMO tech.
The top 3 MMO's of this and next year. TOR, GW, FFXIV.
Neither is at Crysis level, but damn, one could argue that TOR isn't on WoW level. That is just unacceptable.
But yes, Star Wars, Bioware "different art style" blah blah justifies it all.
Was that a serious statement?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I don't think that TOR is made to attract the original fans, those who are 30+ but to attract those who are 12-20.
If you think about it everything makes sense.
As Whargoul said, it attracts me just fine going on 32 here. I also agree with him that it's not much different than KOTOR in terms of visual style. Which is a game most 30 something gamers most likely played. I've been playing KOTOR a lot lately, I still find the visuals (for it's time) to be well done. I also can't help but notice the vast similarities between the two games gfx and art style. Which doesn't surprise me, at least as much as those denouncing them for basically being consistent with their vision of their Star Wars world.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
Umm... GW2's graphics are stylized almost exactly after the original game's. Guild Wars came out before AoC... long before it. They don't need to "copy" from anyone... they have their own talent.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Umm... SE are not going low-end for FFXIV. Not sure where you got that impression. SE have even said FFXIV will require a pretty hefty system to run it...
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Im 32 as well. I find the graphics to be good, not great ... but good. They are certainly a ton better than SWG IMO. I played SWG for a while just before they wrecked it, so I don't see why these graphics can't hold me If the gameplay is good. As far as feel for the combat, who knows ... I'd get a better feel If i were actually playing it ... but then again SWG didn't really have spectacular combat either so I'll probably like it.
Compared to other games, ill just have to see when i can actually play it down the road. It does look like they have a bit mroe work to do on it though.
I wouldn't go with those specs if I wanted a system capable of running a current game of, say, the past year or two at least, with any kind of smooth performance.
Video card that's at least 2 generations old now, 1 GIG of DDR2 ram.... that's pretty lowball right there. You would have to sacrifice a lot of the "visual niceties" on that model video card to play newer games... things that would run smoothly on a cheaper console system out of the box. I seriously hope someone with that set up wouldn't expect to be playing any of the newer games on more than mid to low settings with any kind of good framerate. Also don't forget you have all the overhead of running an entire OS behind the scenes on a PC, so you have to accomodate that as well.
If we're going to compare PCs to a given console on any even terms, you'd really have to build a system to match it spec for spec.... or close to it. Someone with a keen understanding of hardware and what all those "numbers" mean to the bottom line performance would be the best candidate for that.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Quite true. That system frankly sucks. Its old and outdated. You won't be able to play any of the newest games on it (like Crysis and thats a year old). People really need to stop recommending the 8800 for anything. It was really good for its time but we've moved beyond that technology.
Well - basically tech developement moves alot faster than requirements of games. Especially when it comes to MMOPRGs. Crysis may be 1 year old, but it is still one of the key benchmarkers of high visuals. Most games do not require the 2 latest generations of videocards to have nice visuals, and basically it is usually for having Anti-Aliasing and Anisitropic on. High Vram is mostly if you want to have very high resolution and a great fps. 1 GB is still more than enough for most users, if in reality not for all - as it is on the games market.
Buying the latest tech is really overkill, and so is it on your wallet.
When the enemy is driven back, we have failed, and when he is cut off,
encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded.
Maybe I'm just not that picky but the character models don't bother me that much. They're not the best but it's not gonna keep me from playing the game.
It's not the grahpics that bother me
its the fact its just another class based, exp based, quest based, instance based, pos that every company makes.
and no, a bunch of voice acting and story driven don't make up for it.
I would say that writing off the game this early would be a mistake. Especially since it's not even due to be released this year.
i must be lucky...i built a:
2gb ddr2 800
gtx 280
amd 4200+ dual core (yes thats right)
MSI K9N6PGM-F mobo
while the processor is showing its age, and not over clocked....i find it i can handle almost any game on max (minus the real huge hogs like crysis). Maybe i am just really lucky, or maybe cause i am still using win xp.....whatever it is, i am happy my system has lasted as long as it did. other than the vid card, i havent upgraded anything in about 3 years (i actually bought the mobo and proc and ram on 1/10/07...wow).
I am going to upgrade though mobo and proc when SWTOR comes out...cause i am that much of a star wars freak (i bought my first stick of ram when xwing came out so i can play it...100 bucks for 16 megs i think it was on my old 486 dx/66)
To each his own. Maybe Eve-online is the MMO for you?
When the enemy is driven back, we have failed, and when he is cut off,
encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded.
... but thats what computer games ARE. All of them are, just in different forms. Maybe you should find a different hobby if you dislike it so much.
Whatever man.
Just add 2 more gigs of RAM & a little know how & that system can run anything out today on high setting just fine. You really don't need THE BOMB to run games & have fun.
Is the game even in closed beta yet? If not, I wouldn't let the speculation of bad graphics in some combat video bother you, as they are likely to change and get better a great deal as the code gets polished. I could be wrong, of course.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I've been replaying KOTOR and KOTOR2 in the last couple weeks....and since doing that, I'm fine with SWTOR's character styles....they seem like an updated version of KOTOR's, which I feel at home with now.
In fact, I'm actually GLAD now that they went this route....otherwise it wouldn't feel like a continuation of the series, which it is in fact supposed to be.
Consistency, in other words.
I wouldn't go with those specs if I wanted a system capable of running a current game of, say, the past year or two at least, with any kind of smooth performance.
Video card that's at least 2 generations old now, 1 GIG of DDR2 ram.... that's pretty lowball right there. You would have to sacrifice a lot of the "visual niceties" on that model video card to play newer games... things that would run smoothly on a cheaper console system out of the box. I seriously hope someone with that set up wouldn't expect to be playing any of the newer games on more than mid to low settings with any kind of good framerate. Also don't forget you have all the overhead of running an entire OS behind the scenes on a PC, so you have to accomodate that as well.
If we're going to compare PCs to a given console on any even terms, you'd really have to build a system to match it spec for spec.... or close to it. Someone with a keen understanding of hardware and what all those "numbers" mean to the bottom line performance would be the best candidate for that.
Quite true. That system frankly sucks. Its old and outdated. You won't be able to play any of the newest games on it (like Crysis and thats a year old). People really need to stop recommending the 8800 for anything. It was really good for its time but we've moved beyond that technology.
Whatever man.
Just add 2 more gigs of RAM & a little know how & that system can run anything out today on high setting just fine. You really don't need THE BOMB to run games & have fun.
8800 won't run anything on high these days.
I had an 8800GTX. Great card. Replaced it when it stopped being able to deliver a top of the the line gaming experience a few years back.
Alltern8 Blog | Star Wars Space Combat and The Old Republic | Cryptic Studios - A Pre Post-Mortem | Klingon Preview, STO's Monster Play
I don't think that TOR is made to attract the original fans, those who are 30+ but to attract those who are 12-20.
If you think about it everything makes sense.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
It attracts ME just fine, and I'm an old bastage. Thing is, as I've said, the game is meant to look like an updated KOTOR.
I find it odd that everyone has always RAVED about KOTOR (and well they should) but NOW they have an issue with the way it looks??
methinks people are whining for the sake of whining.
Lets also not forget optimization, which on consoles (where this conversation started) things are optimized for the hardware running it. On PC's this isn't always the case, as it would be an impossible feat.That's why console games even though they have lower specs than most PC's run games with all the bells and whistles turned on well, even newer games.
I'll always go for the PC version first (if there is one, and it's not reported to be a horrble port (Saints row 2 as an example)).
I'm running on that card now, which I plan to upgrade asap, simply because in most games (newer) I can't run them well at anything over medium.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Throughout this thread I've seen so many tear down the GFX of TOR and even GW2. What are we comparing these games to, to say they have horrible GFX? TOR looks like a new KOTOR with better lighting, more detail and greater FX. GW2 looks very good IMO in terms of visual presentation (so far). Are they at Crysis lvl? No, then again what MMO has ever been? These are MMO's afterall, the newest gfx tech isn't exactly kosher to MMO tech.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The top 3 MMO's of this and next year. TOR, GW, FFXIV.
Neither is at Crysis level, but damn, one could argue that TOR isn't on WoW level. That is just unacceptable.
But yes, Star Wars, Bioware "different art style" blah blah justifies it all.
Was that a serious statement?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm not saying it, but someone could make such argument, which is sad in itself.
Is it good enough after 6 (7) years of technical advancement? Frankly, not even close.
As Whargoul said, it attracts me just fine going on 32 here. I also agree with him that it's not much different than KOTOR in terms of visual style. Which is a game most 30 something gamers most likely played. I've been playing KOTOR a lot lately, I still find the visuals (for it's time) to be well done. I also can't help but notice the vast similarities between the two games gfx and art style. Which doesn't surprise me, at least as much as those denouncing them for basically being consistent with their vision of their Star Wars world.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson