I prefer realistic over cartoon myself. And I'd expect it with a huge mmo like this. If the character models are too annoying then it doesn't matter if the rest of the game is 100% mega awesome in a zip file I won't buy it.
I don't care if Bioware's artists want to get all artsy with thier models cause they are tried of realistic looks.
How can I take a star wars game seriously if I'm pvping Darth Dark Dude # 123,983,902,839 and he looks like Micky Mouse with a lightsaber?
Just think some kid will see that great cgi moive and go "OH COOLZ!!! I want to look like that badguy dude with the face thing!" and buys the game.
On the character creation screen he'll be thinking, "Is this the new WoW expansion? I thought I cancelled my wow account."
Stylized graphics have a much longer shelf life, are easier on low end systems and appeal to many more mmo gamers.
Games that came out around WoWs release look like dog shit while the majority of gamers still love WoWs look.
Anyway atleast you know you wont be buying it. saved yourself money so you could buy that realistic mmo thats going to look like crap three years after release.
Not quite since, gw1 had more realistic graphics than WoW and was released pretty close to it and still is generally considered to have better graphics as well running just as good as WoW on pretty much any pc. GW2 will probably also run on pretty well on most mid to low range pc's since most of it is smoke and mirror with a very low pixel count.
Stylised alone doesn't neccesarily mean it'll last better if the graphics are based on very well made concept art and good ingame artists it can stand the test of time even better.
GW1 was an entirely instanced hub based game. That would be like saying Phantasy Star Online had better character models and graphics then Everquest. It might be true, but you have two very different types of games.
Instanced had very little to do with it. It was a discussion about graphics longevity was it not?
Even if gw1 was persistant it wouldn't have had huge amount bigger system requirements it compared to what it has currently infact it would still be around the same level as WoW. Hell gw2 with it's huge use of Havoc physics greater polygon count and pixels among a multitude of other improvements upon gw1 still won't have large system requirements. It was a design choice for gw1 to be instanced. It had nothing to do with system requirements or cost
You clearly have little information about the subject so don't butt in with your assumptions.
Actually graphical longevity has a lot to do with the game being a persistent world. Better looking games usually have more instances, and less of an open world. It draws more power from the system to run a full fledged game with all the bells and whistles that still make the game look good in a non instanced world. Take DAOC and SWG for instance. Lets be honest, the graphics weren't great on those either, but they held a hell of a lot of people on screen at one time. I remember extremely large scale battles in pre NGE SWG.
The most players you would see on a screen at one time in GW was what, 30? Regular teams ranging from 5 to 10 players on screen (in arena matches). You could have double or triple that in comparable open world games. With the same graphics? No.
Again your missing the point gw1 didn't have a high poly count, it didn't have a high pixel count it's good graphics were for the most part independent of the fact it was instanced.
ArenaNet said from the get go that it always had the technology to make the game persistant and if you had bothered looking at the polygon and pixel count for gw1 you would have seen just how very low it was. It could have been made persistant with a slight increase in requirements.
Hell gw1 has LOWER system requirements than WoW far lower which ever way you look at it the game could be run persistantly on reasonably low system requirements at most being slightly higher than WoW's with a good likelihood of it having roughly the same.
Your making assumptions on your previous misconceptions, bring me proof that gw1 couldn't be run persistantly on a reasonably low spec rig.
A lot of the faces were generic models they used for everything; they've been steadily replacing these with more customized ones in recent videos; with effects added the models also don't look half-bad in my opinion; such as the smuggler in this video.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
I prefer realistic over cartoon myself. And I'd expect it with a huge mmo like this. If the character models are too annoying then it doesn't matter if the rest of the game is 100% mega awesome in a zip file I won't buy it.
I don't care if Bioware's artists want to get all artsy with thier models cause they are tried of realistic looks.
How can I take a star wars game seriously if I'm pvping Darth Dark Dude # 123,983,902,839 and he looks like Micky Mouse with a lightsaber?
Just think some kid will see that great cgi moive and go "OH COOLZ!!! I want to look like that badguy dude with the face thing!" and buys the game.
On the character creation screen he'll be thinking, "Is this the new WoW expansion? I thought I cancelled my wow account."
Stylized graphics have a much longer shelf life, are easier on low end systems and appeal to many more mmo gamers.
Games that came out around WoWs release look like dog shit while the majority of gamers still love WoWs look.
Anyway atleast you know you wont be buying it. saved yourself money so you could buy that realistic mmo thats going to look like crap three years after release.
Not quite since, gw1 had more realistic graphics than WoW and was released pretty close to it and still is generally considered to have better graphics as well running just as good as WoW on pretty much any pc. GW2 will probably also run on pretty well on most mid to low range pc's since most of it is smoke and mirror with a very low pixel count.
Stylised alone doesn't neccesarily mean it'll last better if the graphics are based on very well made concept art and good ingame artists it can stand the test of time even better.
GW1 was an entirely instanced hub based game. That would be like saying Phantasy Star Online had better character models and graphics then Everquest. It might be true, but you have two very different types of games.
Instanced had very little to do with it. It was a discussion about graphics longevity was it not?
Even if gw1 was persistant it wouldn't have had huge amount bigger system requirements it compared to what it has currently infact it would still be around the same level as WoW. Hell gw2 with it's huge use of Havoc physics greater polygon count and pixels among a multitude of other improvements upon gw1 still won't have large system requirements. It was a design choice for gw1 to be instanced. It had nothing to do with system requirements or cost
You clearly have little information about the subject so don't butt in with your assumptions.
Actually graphical longevity has a lot to do with the game being a persistent world. Better looking games usually have more instances, and less of an open world. It draws more power from the system to run a full fledged game with all the bells and whistles that still make the game look good in a non instanced world. Take DAOC and SWG for instance. Lets be honest, the graphics weren't great on those either, but they held a hell of a lot of people on screen at one time. I remember extremely large scale battles in pre NGE SWG.
The most players you would see on a screen at one time in GW was what, 30? Regular teams ranging from 5 to 10 players on screen (in arena matches). You could have double or triple that in comparable open world games. With the same graphics? No.
Again your missing the point gw1 didn't have a high poly count, it didn't have a high pixel count it's good graphics were for the most part independent of the fact it was instanced.
ArenaNet said from the get go that it always had the technology to make the game persistant and if you had bothered looking at the polygon and pixel count for gw1 you would have seen just how very low it was. It could have been made persistant with a slight increase in requirements.
Hell gw1 has LOWER system requirements than WoW far lower which ever way you look at it the game could be run persistantly on reasonably low system requirements at most being slightly higher than WoW's with a good likelihood of it having roughly the same.
Your making assumptions on your previous misconceptions, bring me proof that gw1 couldn't be run persistantly on a reasonably low spec rig.
What it could be and what it is are two different things. Lower system requirements mean very little, Phantasy Star Online was played on a dreamcast and it looked fantastic.... the game was optimized for lower end systems by only having to load a few characters at a time.
Trying to say guild wars 1 would have run better then WoW in a persistent world cannot be proven, unless you want to heavily modify the game and come back and talk about it.
I prefer realistic over cartoon myself. And I'd expect it with a huge mmo like this. If the character models are too annoying then it doesn't matter if the rest of the game is 100% mega awesome in a zip file I won't buy it.
I don't care if Bioware's artists want to get all artsy with thier models cause they are tried of realistic looks.
How can I take a star wars game seriously if I'm pvping Darth Dark Dude # 123,983,902,839 and he looks like Micky Mouse with a lightsaber?
Just think some kid will see that great cgi moive and go "OH COOLZ!!! I want to look like that badguy dude with the face thing!" and buys the game.
On the character creation screen he'll be thinking, "Is this the new WoW expansion? I thought I cancelled my wow account."
Stylized graphics have a much longer shelf life, are easier on low end systems and appeal to many more mmo gamers.
Games that came out around WoWs release look like dog shit while the majority of gamers still love WoWs look.
Anyway atleast you know you wont be buying it. saved yourself money so you could buy that realistic mmo thats going to look like crap three years after release.
Not quite since, gw1 had more realistic graphics than WoW and was released pretty close to it and still is generally considered to have better graphics as well running just as good as WoW on pretty much any pc. GW2 will probably also run on pretty well on most mid to low range pc's since most of it is smoke and mirror with a very low pixel count.
Stylised alone doesn't neccesarily mean it'll last better if the graphics are based on very well made concept art and good ingame artists it can stand the test of time even better.
GW1 was an entirely instanced hub based game. That would be like saying Phantasy Star Online had better character models and graphics then Everquest. It might be true, but you have two very different types of games.
Instanced had very little to do with it. It was a discussion about graphics longevity was it not?
Even if gw1 was persistant it wouldn't have had huge amount bigger system requirements it compared to what it has currently infact it would still be around the same level as WoW. Hell gw2 with it's huge use of Havoc physics greater polygon count and pixels among a multitude of other improvements upon gw1 still won't have large system requirements. It was a design choice for gw1 to be instanced. It had nothing to do with system requirements or cost
You clearly have little information about the subject so don't butt in with your assumptions.
Actually graphical longevity has a lot to do with the game being a persistent world. Better looking games usually have more instances, and less of an open world. It draws more power from the system to run a full fledged game with all the bells and whistles that still make the game look good in a non instanced world. Take DAOC and SWG for instance. Lets be honest, the graphics weren't great on those either, but they held a hell of a lot of people on screen at one time. I remember extremely large scale battles in pre NGE SWG.
The most players you would see on a screen at one time in GW was what, 30? Regular teams ranging from 5 to 10 players on screen (in arena matches). You could have double or triple that in comparable open world games. With the same graphics? No.
Again your missing the point gw1 didn't have a high poly count, it didn't have a high pixel count it's good graphics were for the most part independent of the fact it was instanced.
ArenaNet said from the get go that it always had the technology to make the game persistant and if you had bothered looking at the polygon and pixel count for gw1 you would have seen just how very low it was. It could have been made persistant with a slight increase in requirements.
Hell gw1 has LOWER system requirements than WoW far lower which ever way you look at it the game could be run persistantly on reasonably low system requirements at most being slightly higher than WoW's with a good likelihood of it having roughly the same.
Your making assumptions on your previous misconceptions, bring me proof that gw1 couldn't be run persistantly on a reasonably low spec rig.
What it could be and what it is are two different things. Lower system requirements mean very little, Phantasy Star Online was played on a dreamcast and it looked fantastic.... the game was optimized for lower end systems by only having to load a few characters at a time.
Trying to say guild wars 1 would have run better then WoW in a persistent world cannot be proven, unless you want to heavily modify the game and come back and talk about it.
I have proof that the developers said gw1 being instanced was purely a design choice, I have proof that gw1 originally had lower system requires than WoW and the fact gw2 will be persistant as well has having more pixels, polygons, physics etc with only likely a marginally better system requirements than the original. I have all this proof leading me to this conclusion.
I am asking what exactly is YOUR proof. You have nothing backing what you think, I have told you what backs up mine. The evidence weighing for must be weighed with the evidnece against. Your arguement is clearly lacking making mine more likely it's as simple as that.
You can't say it won't have a similar system requirements to WoW without evidence either. The evidence must speak for itself and I am yet to see your "proof".
Technically the character models have seen quite big improvements from what I've seen
But the issue was never in the technical side as it was with the art and animations for me..
Animations seem to be improving so far. They're not as stiff as they were in the flashpoint we seen about a year back. The smuggler video linked above shows that it's getting there. The Sith Warrior video was pretty good as well.
I'd definitely be more likely to play if the characters looked more like this. This just looks better. Not so...I dunno...hard looking.
Compared to this...
ugh...the characters in SW:ToR look like those little plastic figures kids play with. Look at the hard lines in the face and what is with the weird shadowing we see in the figures face complexions? Plus the animations look stiff and not very smooth at all.
Ah well, another disgruntled SWG vet. OP, if you think for a minute that SWG actually looked as good as the picture of the Krayt you have posted, then i will assume you have some sort of eye problem. That video was taken from a SWG demo at like an E3 before the game even was released. The whole game, character models , animals, vehicles or anything else never even came close to looking as good as what they showed in that one video. Let's compare though. Top SWG random
You didn't actually read my post, you just saw the two pictures and thought I made a vs thread.
One I never said SWG graphics were amazing
Two I never said I hated the graphics of SWTOR
Three I was saying how the Trandoshan looked like Krayt from SWG
Four I love the graphics of SWTOR, I just hate the character models.
Though them character models in SWG do look better than the ones in SWTOR, not graphically but they don't look totally stupid.
I prefer realistic over cartoon myself. And I'd expect it with a huge mmo like this. If the character models are too annoying then it doesn't matter if the rest of the game is 100% mega awesome in a zip file I won't buy it.
I don't care if Bioware's artists want to get all artsy with thier models cause they are tried of realistic looks.
How can I take a star wars game seriously if I'm pvping Darth Dark Dude # 123,983,902,839 and he looks like Micky Mouse with a lightsaber?
Just think some kid will see that great cgi moive and go "OH COOLZ!!! I want to look like that badguy dude with the face thing!" and buys the game.
On the character creation screen he'll be thinking, "Is this the new WoW expansion? I thought I cancelled my wow account."
Stylized graphics have a much longer shelf life, are easier on low end systems and appeal to many more mmo gamers.
Games that came out around WoWs release look like dog shit while the majority of gamers still love WoWs look.
Anyway atleast you know you wont be buying it. saved yourself money so you could buy that realistic mmo thats going to look like crap three years after release.
Not quite since, gw1 had more realistic graphics than WoW and was released pretty close to it and still is generally considered to have better graphics as well running just as good as WoW on pretty much any pc. GW2 will probably also run on pretty well on most mid to low range pc's since most of it is smoke and mirror with a very low pixel count.
Stylised alone doesn't neccesarily mean it'll last better if the graphics are based on very well made concept art and good ingame artists it can stand the test of time even better.
GW1 was an entirely instanced hub based game. That would be like saying Phantasy Star Online had better character models and graphics then Everquest. It might be true, but you have two very different types of games.
Instanced had very little to do with it. It was a discussion about graphics longevity was it not?
Even if gw1 was persistant it wouldn't have had huge amount bigger system requirements it compared to what it has currently infact it would still be around the same level as WoW. Hell gw2 with it's huge use of Havoc physics greater polygon count and pixels among a multitude of other improvements upon gw1 still won't have large system requirements. It was a design choice for gw1 to be instanced. It had nothing to do with system requirements or cost
You clearly have little information about the subject so don't butt in with your assumptions.
Actually graphical longevity has a lot to do with the game being a persistent world. Better looking games usually have more instances, and less of an open world. It draws more power from the system to run a full fledged game with all the bells and whistles that still make the game look good in a non instanced world. Take DAOC and SWG for instance. Lets be honest, the graphics weren't great on those either, but they held a hell of a lot of people on screen at one time. I remember extremely large scale battles in pre NGE SWG.
The most players you would see on a screen at one time in GW was what, 30? Regular teams ranging from 5 to 10 players on screen (in arena matches). You could have double or triple that in comparable open world games. With the same graphics? No.
Again your missing the point gw1 didn't have a high poly count, it didn't have a high pixel count it's good graphics were for the most part independent of the fact it was instanced.
ArenaNet said from the get go that it always had the technology to make the game persistant and if you had bothered looking at the polygon and pixel count for gw1 you would have seen just how very low it was. It could have been made persistant with a slight increase in requirements.
Hell gw1 has LOWER system requirements than WoW far lower which ever way you look at it the game could be run persistantly on reasonably low system requirements at most being slightly higher than WoW's with a good likelihood of it having roughly the same.
Your making assumptions on your previous misconceptions, bring me proof that gw1 couldn't be run persistantly on a reasonably low spec rig.
What it could be and what it is are two different things. Lower system requirements mean very little, Phantasy Star Online was played on a dreamcast and it looked fantastic.... the game was optimized for lower end systems by only having to load a few characters at a time.
Trying to say guild wars 1 would have run better then WoW in a persistent world cannot be proven, unless you want to heavily modify the game and come back and talk about it.
I have proof that the developers said gw1 being instanced was purely a design choice, I have proof that gw1 originally had lower system requires than WoW and the fact gw2 will be persistant as well has having more pixels, polygons, physics etc with only likely a marginally better system requirements than the original. I have all this proof leading me to this conclusion.
I am asking what exactly is YOUR proof. You have nothing backing what you think, I have told you what backs up mine. The evidence weighing for must be weighed with the evidnece against. Your arguement is clearly lacking making mine more likely it's as simple as that.
You can't say it won't have a similar system requirements to WoW without evidence either. The evidence must speak for itself and I am yet to see your "proof".
I actually have very good proof. GW1 was completely instanced. that seems proof enough for me. If the developers say they can do something and turn around and do something else, only proves they can do one of those things, not the opposite. Or perhaps we should just believe the developers whenever they say "We could have made this game much better, but we decided not to for designs sake." "We could have had groups of 60, but we didn't because we didn't want to."
Doesn't matter what they say, it only matters what they do. And then they turn around in GW2 and do it again with open world instancing.
"
I hear you mention world vs. world. Guild Wars currently doesn't have separate realms or servers, so does this mean there will be different factions in the game?
Mike: The way it works with Guild Wars 2 is, because we'll now be using a big persistent world, we're not sticking everybody into the same copy of the world map, because obviously you can't have hundreds of thousands of people stomping all over each other. We do split this up into different worlds, like you would see in other MMOGs, but a key difference is that, because we have one global database, which we built for Guild Wars 1, we use that to allow people to switch between worlds. "
Its not a bad thing.. in fact I don't think theres any other way they could do it.. just pointing out the obvious I guess.
So the system will be similar to a Tabula Rasa, and Champions Online. Who knows what the area/world caps will be. 200 per area? Seems a good way to throttle performance.
I prefer realistic over cartoon myself. And I'd expect it with a huge mmo like this. If the character models are too annoying then it doesn't matter if the rest of the game is 100% mega awesome in a zip file I won't buy it.
I don't care if Bioware's artists want to get all artsy with thier models cause they are tried of realistic looks.
How can I take a star wars game seriously if I'm pvping Darth Dark Dude # 123,983,902,839 and he looks like Micky Mouse with a lightsaber?
Just think some kid will see that great cgi moive and go "OH COOLZ!!! I want to look like that badguy dude with the face thing!" and buys the game.
On the character creation screen he'll be thinking, "Is this the new WoW expansion? I thought I cancelled my wow account."
Stylized graphics have a much longer shelf life, are easier on low end systems and appeal to many more mmo gamers.
Games that came out around WoWs release look like dog shit while the majority of gamers still love WoWs look.
Anyway atleast you know you wont be buying it. saved yourself money so you could buy that realistic mmo thats going to look like crap three years after release.
Not quite since, gw1 had more realistic graphics than WoW and was released pretty close to it and still is generally considered to have better graphics as well running just as good as WoW on pretty much any pc. GW2 will probably also run on pretty well on most mid to low range pc's since most of it is smoke and mirror with a very low pixel count.
Stylised alone doesn't neccesarily mean it'll last better if the graphics are based on very well made concept art and good ingame artists it can stand the test of time even better.
GW1 was an entirely instanced hub based game. That would be like saying Phantasy Star Online had better character models and graphics then Everquest. It might be true, but you have two very different types of games.
Instanced had very little to do with it. It was a discussion about graphics longevity was it not?
Even if gw1 was persistant it wouldn't have had huge amount bigger system requirements it compared to what it has currently infact it would still be around the same level as WoW. Hell gw2 with it's huge use of Havoc physics greater polygon count and pixels among a multitude of other improvements upon gw1 still won't have large system requirements. It was a design choice for gw1 to be instanced. It had nothing to do with system requirements or cost
You clearly have little information about the subject so don't butt in with your assumptions.
Actually graphical longevity has a lot to do with the game being a persistent world. Better looking games usually have more instances, and less of an open world. It draws more power from the system to run a full fledged game with all the bells and whistles that still make the game look good in a non instanced world. Take DAOC and SWG for instance. Lets be honest, the graphics weren't great on those either, but they held a hell of a lot of people on screen at one time. I remember extremely large scale battles in pre NGE SWG.
The most players you would see on a screen at one time in GW was what, 30? Regular teams ranging from 5 to 10 players on screen (in arena matches). You could have double or triple that in comparable open world games. With the same graphics? No.
Again your missing the point gw1 didn't have a high poly count, it didn't have a high pixel count it's good graphics were for the most part independent of the fact it was instanced.
ArenaNet said from the get go that it always had the technology to make the game persistant and if you had bothered looking at the polygon and pixel count for gw1 you would have seen just how very low it was. It could have been made persistant with a slight increase in requirements.
Hell gw1 has LOWER system requirements than WoW far lower which ever way you look at it the game could be run persistantly on reasonably low system requirements at most being slightly higher than WoW's with a good likelihood of it having roughly the same.
Your making assumptions on your previous misconceptions, bring me proof that gw1 couldn't be run persistantly on a reasonably low spec rig.
What it could be and what it is are two different things. Lower system requirements mean very little, Phantasy Star Online was played on a dreamcast and it looked fantastic.... the game was optimized for lower end systems by only having to load a few characters at a time.
Trying to say guild wars 1 would have run better then WoW in a persistent world cannot be proven, unless you want to heavily modify the game and come back and talk about it.
I have proof that the developers said gw1 being instanced was purely a design choice, I have proof that gw1 originally had lower system requires than WoW and the fact gw2 will be persistant as well has having more pixels, polygons, physics etc with only likely a marginally better system requirements than the original. I have all this proof leading me to this conclusion.
I am asking what exactly is YOUR proof. You have nothing backing what you think, I have told you what backs up mine. The evidence weighing for must be weighed with the evidnece against. Your arguement is clearly lacking making mine more likely it's as simple as that.
You can't say it won't have a similar system requirements to WoW without evidence either. The evidence must speak for itself and I am yet to see your "proof".
I actually have very good proof. GW1 was completely instanced. that seems proof enough for me. If the developers say they can do something and turn around and do something else, only proves they can do one of those things, not the opposite. Or perhaps we should just believe the developers whenever they say "We could have made this game much better, but we decided not to for designs sake." "We could have had groups of 60, but we didn't because we didn't want to."
Doesn't matter what they say, it only matters what they do. And then they turn around in GW2 and do it again with open world instancing.
"
I hear you mention world vs. world. Guild Wars currently doesn't have separate realms or servers, so does this mean there will be different factions in the game?
Mike: The way it works with Guild Wars 2 is, because we'll now be using a big persistent world, we're not sticking everybody into the same copy of the world map, because obviously you can't have hundreds of thousands of people stomping all over each other. We do split this up into different worlds, like you would see in other MMOGs, but a key difference is that, because we have one global database, which we built for Guild Wars 1, we use that to allow people to switch between worlds. "
Its not a bad thing.. in fact I don't think theres any other way they could do it.. just pointing out the obvious I guess.
So the system will be similar to a Tabula Rasa, and Champions Online. Who knows what the area/world caps will be. 200 per area? Seems a good way to throttle performance.
So you just confirmed you have no proof for your arguemnt what so ever? If gw1 was designed to be persistant it's unlikely to have had a massively large system req for it's time and probably would comparabe to wow's system req. You just proven that it could be easily have been made orginally persistant using gw1 technology with a pretty good likihood of it having a low system req.
Why did you even enter this arguement you clearly have far less proof than I do. Seriously my thought pattern has proof you have nothing against that proof. this is a pointless arguement which your clearly on the loosing end of let's just end this now.
If you have seen the newest sith video´s, you could notice the big difference in previous character models compared to the ones on the new sith video. you should wait until they release a character creation video or until they release the game...
but stating you won't play a game because the character models in alpha/beta phase look bad, is just nonsense
I agree , this is a pretty poor post by the OP an opinion yes but very poor. The graphics all around look fantastic, I wouldn't worry about the faces and features you can see from recent models they are improving. The Engine they are using has a lot of char creation options and flexibility before SWTOR even before they licenced it so I have no problems here.
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
I'd definitely be more likely to play if the characters looked more like this. This just looks better. Not so...I dunno...hard looking.
Compared to this...
ugh...the characters in SW:ToR look like those little plastic figures kids play with. Look at the hard lines in the face and what is with the weird shadowing we see in the figures face complexions? Plus the animations look stiff and not very smooth at all.
It took this post, every now and then I need visuals, to really bring this home. Looking at the screen shots so far one can easily con them selves in to saying, "well, it's not so bad ... at least it's star wars". I can't do that now, damn it Teala thanks a lot! Seriously though, the enjoyment of the world would be so much more if it didn't look like you were running around with a old GI Joe toy as your character. At least they come with Kung Fu grip?
I prefer realistic over cartoon myself. And I'd expect it with a huge mmo like this. If the character models are too annoying then it doesn't matter if the rest of the game is 100% mega awesome in a zip file I won't buy it.
I don't care if Bioware's artists want to get all artsy with thier models cause they are tried of realistic looks.
How can I take a star wars game seriously if I'm pvping Darth Dark Dude # 123,983,902,839 and he looks like Micky Mouse with a lightsaber?
Just think some kid will see that great cgi moive and go "OH COOLZ!!! I want to look like that badguy dude with the face thing!" and buys the game.
On the character creation screen he'll be thinking, "Is this the new WoW expansion? I thought I cancelled my wow account."
Stylized graphics have a much longer shelf life, are easier on low end systems and appeal to many more mmo gamers.
Games that came out around WoWs release look like dog shit while the majority of gamers still love WoWs look.
Anyway atleast you know you wont be buying it. saved yourself money so you could buy that realistic mmo thats going to look like crap three years after release.
Not quite since, gw1 had more realistic graphics than WoW and was released pretty close to it and still is generally considered to have better graphics as well running just as good as WoW on pretty much any pc. GW2 will probably also run on pretty well on most mid to low range pc's since most of it is smoke and mirror with a very low pixel count.
Stylised alone doesn't neccesarily mean it'll last better if the graphics are based on very well made concept art and good ingame artists it can stand the test of time even better.
GW1 was an entirely instanced hub based game. That would be like saying Phantasy Star Online had better character models and graphics then Everquest. It might be true, but you have two very different types of games.
Instanced had very little to do with it. It was a discussion about graphics longevity was it not?
Even if gw1 was persistant it wouldn't have had huge amount bigger system requirements it compared to what it has currently infact it would still be around the same level as WoW. Hell gw2 with it's huge use of Havoc physics greater polygon count and pixels among a multitude of other improvements upon gw1 still won't have large system requirements. It was a design choice for gw1 to be instanced. It had nothing to do with system requirements or cost
You clearly have little information about the subject so don't butt in with your assumptions.
Actually graphical longevity has a lot to do with the game being a persistent world. Better looking games usually have more instances, and less of an open world. It draws more power from the system to run a full fledged game with all the bells and whistles that still make the game look good in a non instanced world. Take DAOC and SWG for instance. Lets be honest, the graphics weren't great on those either, but they held a hell of a lot of people on screen at one time. I remember extremely large scale battles in pre NGE SWG.
The most players you would see on a screen at one time in GW was what, 30? Regular teams ranging from 5 to 10 players on screen (in arena matches). You could have double or triple that in comparable open world games. With the same graphics? No.
Again your missing the point gw1 didn't have a high poly count, it didn't have a high pixel count it's good graphics were for the most part independent of the fact it was instanced.
ArenaNet said from the get go that it always had the technology to make the game persistant and if you had bothered looking at the polygon and pixel count for gw1 you would have seen just how very low it was. It could have been made persistant with a slight increase in requirements.
Hell gw1 has LOWER system requirements than WoW far lower which ever way you look at it the game could be run persistantly on reasonably low system requirements at most being slightly higher than WoW's with a good likelihood of it having roughly the same.
Your making assumptions on your previous misconceptions, bring me proof that gw1 couldn't be run persistantly on a reasonably low spec rig.
What it could be and what it is are two different things. Lower system requirements mean very little, Phantasy Star Online was played on a dreamcast and it looked fantastic.... the game was optimized for lower end systems by only having to load a few characters at a time.
Trying to say guild wars 1 would have run better then WoW in a persistent world cannot be proven, unless you want to heavily modify the game and come back and talk about it.
I have proof that the developers said gw1 being instanced was purely a design choice, I have proof that gw1 originally had lower system requires than WoW and the fact gw2 will be persistant as well has having more pixels, polygons, physics etc with only likely a marginally better system requirements than the original. I have all this proof leading me to this conclusion.
I am asking what exactly is YOUR proof. You have nothing backing what you think, I have told you what backs up mine. The evidence weighing for must be weighed with the evidnece against. Your arguement is clearly lacking making mine more likely it's as simple as that.
You can't say it won't have a similar system requirements to WoW without evidence either. The evidence must speak for itself and I am yet to see your "proof".
I actually have very good proof. GW1 was completely instanced. that seems proof enough for me. If the developers say they can do something and turn around and do something else, only proves they can do one of those things, not the opposite. Or perhaps we should just believe the developers whenever they say "We could have made this game much better, but we decided not to for designs sake." "We could have had groups of 60, but we didn't because we didn't want to."
Doesn't matter what they say, it only matters what they do. And then they turn around in GW2 and do it again with open world instancing.
"
I hear you mention world vs. world. Guild Wars currently doesn't have separate realms or servers, so does this mean there will be different factions in the game?
Mike: The way it works with Guild Wars 2 is, because we'll now be using a big persistent world, we're not sticking everybody into the same copy of the world map, because obviously you can't have hundreds of thousands of people stomping all over each other. We do split this up into different worlds, like you would see in other MMOGs, but a key difference is that, because we have one global database, which we built for Guild Wars 1, we use that to allow people to switch between worlds. "
Its not a bad thing.. in fact I don't think theres any other way they could do it.. just pointing out the obvious I guess.
So the system will be similar to a Tabula Rasa, and Champions Online. Who knows what the area/world caps will be. 200 per area? Seems a good way to throttle performance.
You do realise that's point for my argument not yours. Do you even understand what this arguement is about
Yup, its about realistic character models and the longevity of them. It has much to do with the way the game engine is.. thats why many people brought up WoWs models.. no they aren't the best, but they serve their purpose. You were trying to tell me GuildWars has better character models then WoW and they could have done an open world and outperformed it.
I disagreed. You tried to prove it by saying "the developers said" and then I showed you that not only did you not prove it, but that they decided to throttle the amount of character models on screen again in guild wars 2. How this proves your point I don't know. If you're trying to say instanced games have better character models, then I'm all for it. If you're trying to say realistic character models stand the test of time better, then again, can't be proven.
What is proven is that character models and their relevance to the gameplay is held in the eye of the beholder. Some people might not like WoWs character models (I don't) but I do like most of TORs models.
I prefer realistic over cartoon myself. And I'd expect it with a huge mmo like this. If the character models are too annoying then it doesn't matter if the rest of the game is 100% mega awesome in a zip file I won't buy it.
I don't care if Bioware's artists want to get all artsy with thier models cause they are tried of realistic looks.
How can I take a star wars game seriously if I'm pvping Darth Dark Dude # 123,983,902,839 and he looks like Micky Mouse with a lightsaber?
Just think some kid will see that great cgi moive and go "OH COOLZ!!! I want to look like that badguy dude with the face thing!" and buys the game.
On the character creation screen he'll be thinking, "Is this the new WoW expansion? I thought I cancelled my wow account."
Stylized graphics have a much longer shelf life, are easier on low end systems and appeal to many more mmo gamers.
Games that came out around WoWs release look like dog shit while the majority of gamers still love WoWs look.
Anyway atleast you know you wont be buying it. saved yourself money so you could buy that realistic mmo thats going to look like crap three years after release.
Not quite since, gw1 had more realistic graphics than WoW and was released pretty close to it and still is generally considered to have better graphics as well running just as good as WoW on pretty much any pc. GW2 will probably also run on pretty well on most mid to low range pc's since most of it is smoke and mirror with a very low pixel count.
Stylised alone doesn't neccesarily mean it'll last better if the graphics are based on very well made concept art and good ingame artists it can stand the test of time even better.
GW1 was an entirely instanced hub based game. That would be like saying Phantasy Star Online had better character models and graphics then Everquest. It might be true, but you have two very different types of games.
Instanced had very little to do with it. It was a discussion about graphics longevity was it not?
Even if gw1 was persistant it wouldn't have had huge amount bigger system requirements it compared to what it has currently infact it would still be around the same level as WoW. Hell gw2 with it's huge use of Havoc physics greater polygon count and pixels among a multitude of other improvements upon gw1 still won't have large system requirements. It was a design choice for gw1 to be instanced. It had nothing to do with system requirements or cost
You clearly have little information about the subject so don't butt in with your assumptions.
Actually graphical longevity has a lot to do with the game being a persistent world. Better looking games usually have more instances, and less of an open world. It draws more power from the system to run a full fledged game with all the bells and whistles that still make the game look good in a non instanced world. Take DAOC and SWG for instance. Lets be honest, the graphics weren't great on those either, but they held a hell of a lot of people on screen at one time. I remember extremely large scale battles in pre NGE SWG.
The most players you would see on a screen at one time in GW was what, 30? Regular teams ranging from 5 to 10 players on screen (in arena matches). You could have double or triple that in comparable open world games. With the same graphics? No.
Again your missing the point gw1 didn't have a high poly count, it didn't have a high pixel count it's good graphics were for the most part independent of the fact it was instanced.
ArenaNet said from the get go that it always had the technology to make the game persistant and if you had bothered looking at the polygon and pixel count for gw1 you would have seen just how very low it was. It could have been made persistant with a slight increase in requirements.
Hell gw1 has LOWER system requirements than WoW far lower which ever way you look at it the game could be run persistantly on reasonably low system requirements at most being slightly higher than WoW's with a good likelihood of it having roughly the same.
Your making assumptions on your previous misconceptions, bring me proof that gw1 couldn't be run persistantly on a reasonably low spec rig.
What it could be and what it is are two different things. Lower system requirements mean very little, Phantasy Star Online was played on a dreamcast and it looked fantastic.... the game was optimized for lower end systems by only having to load a few characters at a time.
Trying to say guild wars 1 would have run better then WoW in a persistent world cannot be proven, unless you want to heavily modify the game and come back and talk about it.
I have proof that the developers said gw1 being instanced was purely a design choice, I have proof that gw1 originally had lower system requires than WoW and the fact gw2 will be persistant as well has having more pixels, polygons, physics etc with only likely a marginally better system requirements than the original. I have all this proof leading me to this conclusion.
I am asking what exactly is YOUR proof. You have nothing backing what you think, I have told you what backs up mine. The evidence weighing for must be weighed with the evidnece against. Your arguement is clearly lacking making mine more likely it's as simple as that.
You can't say it won't have a similar system requirements to WoW without evidence either. The evidence must speak for itself and I am yet to see your "proof".
I actually have very good proof. GW1 was completely instanced. that seems proof enough for me. If the developers say they can do something and turn around and do something else, only proves they can do one of those things, not the opposite. Or perhaps we should just believe the developers whenever they say "We could have made this game much better, but we decided not to for designs sake." "We could have had groups of 60, but we didn't because we didn't want to."
Doesn't matter what they say, it only matters what they do. And then they turn around in GW2 and do it again with open world instancing.
"
I hear you mention world vs. world. Guild Wars currently doesn't have separate realms or servers, so does this mean there will be different factions in the game?
Mike: The way it works with Guild Wars 2 is, because we'll now be using a big persistent world, we're not sticking everybody into the same copy of the world map, because obviously you can't have hundreds of thousands of people stomping all over each other. We do split this up into different worlds, like you would see in other MMOGs, but a key difference is that, because we have one global database, which we built for Guild Wars 1, we use that to allow people to switch between worlds. "
Its not a bad thing.. in fact I don't think theres any other way they could do it.. just pointing out the obvious I guess.
So the system will be similar to a Tabula Rasa, and Champions Online. Who knows what the area/world caps will be. 200 per area? Seems a good way to throttle performance.
You do realise that's point for my argument not yours. Do you even understand what this arguement is about
Yup, its about realistic character models and the longevity of them. It has much to do with the way the game engine is.. thats why many people brought up WoWs models.. no they aren't the best, but they serve their purpose. You were trying to tell me GuildWars has better character models then WoW and they could have done an open world and outperformed it.
I disagreed. You tried to prove it by saying "the developers said" and then I showed you that not only did you not prove it, but that they decided to throttle the amount of character models on screen again in guild wars 2. How this proves your point I don't know. If you're trying to say instanced games have better character models, then I'm all for it. If you're trying to say realistic character models stand the test of time better, then again, can't be proven.
What is proven is that character models and their relevance to the gameplay is held in the eye of the beholder. Some people might not like WoWs character models (I don't) but I do like most of TORs models.
Really.... this was never an arguement about longevity read your opening post.... you turned this into an arguement about how gw1 only had good graphics because it was instanced I showed proof this was not the case. You had no proof and showed what the developer's said and did which actually PROVED MY POINT. Yet for some reason you can't realise this fact that I have more proof for my idea yet you have yet to show proof for yours.
Yup, its about realistic character models and the longevity of them. It has much to do with the way the game engine is.. thats why many people brought up WoWs models.. no they aren't the best, but they serve their purpose. You were trying to tell me GuildWars has better character models then WoW and they could have done an open world and outperformed it.
I disagreed. You tried to prove it by saying "the developers said" and then I showed you that not only did you not prove it, but that they decided to throttle the amount of character models on screen again in guild wars 2. How this proves your point I don't know. If you're trying to say instanced games have better character models, then I'm all for it. If you're trying to say realistic character models stand the test of time better, then again, can't be proven.
What is proven is that character models and their relevance to the gameplay is held in the eye of the beholder. Some people might not like WoWs character models (I don't) but I do like most of TORs models.
Really.... this was never an arguement about longevity read your opening post.... you turned this into an arguement about how gw1 only had good graphics because it was instanced I showed proof this was not the case. You had no proof and showed what the developer's said and did which actually PROVED MY POINT. Yet for some reason you can't realise this fact that I have more proof for my idea yet you have yet to show proof for yours.
Show me your proof. Because the game being instanced doesn't show me proof, it shows me the contrary, that the game was created to look good and run in a very instanced state so it would still perform well. You haven't given me any proof that guild wars 1 could survive in a completely open world, whereas I can show you easily that it survived in an instanced world. Then I proved "your" point by showing you that the developers are instancing their game AGAIN. Is that really proving your point? Okay then.
I love the look of the character models. But I've been playing WoW as my main MMO for 5 years off and on, and they're kinda close in style.
I'm glad that you enjoyed WoW, I did in my time with the game. But this is the exact reason a lot of folks are not pleased with the models, they don't want World of Wars they want Star Wars. I for one, would prefer it to be somewhat original and not just ride the coat tails of an old game. Making an effort to be innovative is not that hard, look what Final Fantasy and Guild Wars are doing.
Yup, its about realistic character models and the longevity of them. It has much to do with the way the game engine is.. thats why many people brought up WoWs models.. no they aren't the best, but they serve their purpose. You were trying to tell me GuildWars has better character models then WoW and they could have done an open world and outperformed it.
I disagreed. You tried to prove it by saying "the developers said" and then I showed you that not only did you not prove it, but that they decided to throttle the amount of character models on screen again in guild wars 2. How this proves your point I don't know. If you're trying to say instanced games have better character models, then I'm all for it. If you're trying to say realistic character models stand the test of time better, then again, can't be proven.
What is proven is that character models and their relevance to the gameplay is held in the eye of the beholder. Some people might not like WoWs character models (I don't) but I do like most of TORs models.
Really.... this was never an arguement about longevity read your opening post.... you turned this into an arguement about how gw1 only had good graphics because it was instanced I showed proof this was not the case. You had no proof and showed what the developer's said and did which actually PROVED MY POINT. Yet for some reason you can't realise this fact that I have more proof for my idea yet you have yet to show proof for yours.
Show me your proof. Because the game being instanced doesn't show me proof, it shows me the contrary, that the game was created to look good and run in a very instanced state so it would still perform well. You haven't given me any proof that guild wars 1 could survive in a completely open world, whereas I can show you easily that it survived in an instanced world. Then I proved "your" point by showing you that the developers are instancing their game AGAIN. Is that really proving your point? Okay then.
Re-read what they said. They there is no districts it is split up by servers like other mmo's. Characters are transfered using gw1 tech. That is not instancing in anyway shape or form it is the opposite. They use gw1 tech to transfer characters everything else is the exact same as a normal persistant mmo.
We do split this up into different worlds, like you would see in other MMOGs, but a key difference is that, because we have one global database, which we built for Guild Wars 1, we use that to allow people to switch between worlds
Your misinterpretating your own "proof". If that is your only proof it leaves you with no proof.
Was just thinking about the title of the thread and came to the conclusion... GOOD..
It's a game after all, how serious were you planning on taking it anyway???
Outdoors is good.. Perhaps at some point the OP should get out of the basement and check out that big glowing yellow ball in the sky.. Careful though, wear some sunglasses, it's significantly brighter than the ambient light emmitted by an LCD monitor.
"If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford
Comments
Again your missing the point gw1 didn't have a high poly count, it didn't have a high pixel count it's good graphics were for the most part independent of the fact it was instanced.
ArenaNet said from the get go that it always had the technology to make the game persistant and if you had bothered looking at the polygon and pixel count for gw1 you would have seen just how very low it was. It could have been made persistant with a slight increase in requirements.
Hell gw1 has LOWER system requirements than WoW far lower which ever way you look at it the game could be run persistantly on reasonably low system requirements at most being slightly higher than WoW's with a good likelihood of it having roughly the same.
Your making assumptions on your previous misconceptions, bring me proof that gw1 couldn't be run persistantly on a reasonably low spec rig.
A lot of the faces were generic models they used for everything; they've been steadily replacing these with more customized ones in recent videos; with effects added the models also don't look half-bad in my opinion; such as the smuggler in this video.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Technically the character models have seen quite big improvements from what I've seen
But the issue was never in the technical side as it was with the art and animations for me..
What it could be and what it is are two different things. Lower system requirements mean very little, Phantasy Star Online was played on a dreamcast and it looked fantastic.... the game was optimized for lower end systems by only having to load a few characters at a time.
Trying to say guild wars 1 would have run better then WoW in a persistent world cannot be proven, unless you want to heavily modify the game and come back and talk about it.
I have proof that the developers said gw1 being instanced was purely a design choice, I have proof that gw1 originally had lower system requires than WoW and the fact gw2 will be persistant as well has having more pixels, polygons, physics etc with only likely a marginally better system requirements than the original. I have all this proof leading me to this conclusion.
I am asking what exactly is YOUR proof. You have nothing backing what you think, I have told you what backs up mine. The evidence weighing for must be weighed with the evidnece against. Your arguement is clearly lacking making mine more likely it's as simple as that.
You can't say it won't have a similar system requirements to WoW without evidence either. The evidence must speak for itself and I am yet to see your "proof".
Animations seem to be improving so far. They're not as stiff as they were in the flashpoint we seen about a year back. The smuggler video linked above shows that it's getting there. The Sith Warrior video was pretty good as well.
I'm just going to leave these here.
Old(only old one I know of)
New
I'd definitely be more likely to play if the characters looked more like this. This just looks better. Not so...I dunno...hard looking.
Compared to this...
ugh...the characters in SW:ToR look like those little plastic figures kids play with. Look at the hard lines in the face and what is with the weird shadowing we see in the figures face complexions? Plus the animations look stiff and not very smooth at all.
Hah
Respect dude, but the irony of your post is overwhelming
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
You didn't actually read my post, you just saw the two pictures and thought I made a vs thread.
One I never said SWG graphics were amazing
Two I never said I hated the graphics of SWTOR
Three I was saying how the Trandoshan looked like Krayt from SWG
Four I love the graphics of SWTOR, I just hate the character models.
Though them character models in SWG do look better than the ones in SWTOR, not graphically but they don't look totally stupid.
I actually have very good proof. GW1 was completely instanced. that seems proof enough for me. If the developers say they can do something and turn around and do something else, only proves they can do one of those things, not the opposite. Or perhaps we should just believe the developers whenever they say "We could have made this game much better, but we decided not to for designs sake." "We could have had groups of 60, but we didn't because we didn't want to."
Doesn't matter what they say, it only matters what they do. And then they turn around in GW2 and do it again with open world instancing.
"
I hear you mention world vs. world. Guild Wars currently doesn't have separate realms or servers, so does this mean there will be different factions in the game?
Mike: The way it works with Guild Wars 2 is, because we'll now be using a big persistent world, we're not sticking everybody into the same copy of the world map, because obviously you can't have hundreds of thousands of people stomping all over each other. We do split this up into different worlds, like you would see in other MMOGs, but a key difference is that, because we have one global database, which we built for Guild Wars 1, we use that to allow people to switch between worlds. "
Its not a bad thing.. in fact I don't think theres any other way they could do it.. just pointing out the obvious I guess.
So the system will be similar to a Tabula Rasa, and Champions Online. Who knows what the area/world caps will be. 200 per area? Seems a good way to throttle performance.
This is nonsense.
Everyone knows Star Wars is all about cartoony looking funny characters like Jar Jar Binks. And Liddle Anakin.
I mean imagine something like bad ass looking intimidating and realistic characters. Thats totally not Star Wars !
My only critique is that characters do not have big enough heads.
Damn straight. "Bad ass looking intimidating and realistic" belongs to Warhammer 40k, not Star Wars.
Sorry Lobo. I countered your sarcasm with my serious comment
WUT?
REALISTIC?
Plays Vanguard saga of heroes!
^ LOOKS LIKE REAL LIFE BRO
I agree , this is a pretty poor post by the OP an opinion yes but very poor. The graphics all around look fantastic, I wouldn't worry about the faces and features you can see from recent models they are improving. The Engine they are using has a lot of char creation options and flexibility before SWTOR even before they licenced it so I have no problems here.
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
It took this post, every now and then I need visuals, to really bring this home. Looking at the screen shots so far one can easily con them selves in to saying, "well, it's not so bad ... at least it's star wars". I can't do that now, damn it Teala thanks a lot! Seriously though, the enjoyment of the world would be so much more if it didn't look like you were running around with a old GI Joe toy as your character. At least they come with Kung Fu grip?
END OF LINE_
~V
Yup, its about realistic character models and the longevity of them. It has much to do with the way the game engine is.. thats why many people brought up WoWs models.. no they aren't the best, but they serve their purpose. You were trying to tell me GuildWars has better character models then WoW and they could have done an open world and outperformed it.
I disagreed. You tried to prove it by saying "the developers said" and then I showed you that not only did you not prove it, but that they decided to throttle the amount of character models on screen again in guild wars 2. How this proves your point I don't know. If you're trying to say instanced games have better character models, then I'm all for it. If you're trying to say realistic character models stand the test of time better, then again, can't be proven.
What is proven is that character models and their relevance to the gameplay is held in the eye of the beholder. Some people might not like WoWs character models (I don't) but I do like most of TORs models.
I love the look of the character models. But I've been playing WoW as my main MMO for 5 years off and on, and they're kinda close in style.
Really.... this was never an arguement about longevity read your opening post.... you turned this into an arguement about how gw1 only had good graphics because it was instanced I showed proof this was not the case. You had no proof and showed what the developer's said and did which actually PROVED MY POINT. Yet for some reason you can't realise this fact that I have more proof for my idea yet you have yet to show proof for yours.
Show me your proof. Because the game being instanced doesn't show me proof, it shows me the contrary, that the game was created to look good and run in a very instanced state so it would still perform well. You haven't given me any proof that guild wars 1 could survive in a completely open world, whereas I can show you easily that it survived in an instanced world. Then I proved "your" point by showing you that the developers are instancing their game AGAIN. Is that really proving your point? Okay then.
We don't want you playing this game if you care so much.
I'm glad that you enjoyed WoW, I did in my time with the game. But this is the exact reason a lot of folks are not pleased with the models, they don't want World of Wars they want Star Wars. I for one, would prefer it to be somewhat original and not just ride the coat tails of an old game. Making an effort to be innovative is not that hard, look what Final Fantasy and Guild Wars are doing.
END OF LINE_
~V
Re-read what they said. They there is no districts it is split up by servers like other mmo's. Characters are transfered using gw1 tech. That is not instancing in anyway shape or form it is the opposite. They use gw1 tech to transfer characters everything else is the exact same as a normal persistant mmo.
We do split this up into different worlds, like you would see in other MMOGs, but a key difference is that, because we have one global database, which we built for Guild Wars 1, we use that to allow people to switch between worlds
Your misinterpretating your own "proof". If that is your only proof it leaves you with no proof.
Was just thinking about the title of the thread and came to the conclusion... GOOD..
It's a game after all, how serious were you planning on taking it anyway???
Outdoors is good.. Perhaps at some point the OP should get out of the basement and check out that big glowing yellow ball in the sky.. Careful though, wear some sunglasses, it's significantly brighter than the ambient light emmitted by an LCD monitor.
"If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford