If it did, Funcom would be the biggest and richest producer of MMO games rather than Blizzard. Funcom knows how to produce fantastic graphics. They're just not very effective at pulling off the FUN in funcom when it comes to gameplay and overall quality experience. People need to seriously prioritize what they're looking for in a great MMO. Imho, it should be listed as follows in order:
1) fantastic gameplay (beginning to end-game)
2) Superior, overall quality (well polished with few bugs)
3) Innovative gameplay that distinguishes it from the others in the mmo space (the full vo mechanic with everything else tied to it, in Bioware's case)
.
.
.
.
99) Graphics
If graphics were at the top of my list, I would be a total fanboi of Funcom and go to all their conventions and crap on all the other mmos and think they are the greatest thing evah since sliced bread!!!
I dont even disagree with you , for the most part I DO agree. |However mmos do end up getting passed up based on graphics.
I do think you posting that link and mention blizard being funny, you should have seen WoW at release.
Good graphics in themselves does indeed not make a good MMO, but they are a part of the general picture and helps.
Good games have been sunk by bad graphics before. And I don't think making priorities on a list helps here, a MMO is a huge thing and it is all things together, the big and small things that makes a good game.
And in Funcoms defense isn't AoC really a bad game, it was just really buggy at launch and is a lot smaller than a MMO should be. There are worse games out there with more players. AoC do have some features that are excellent and among the best there is, like the collision detection and the fact that you don't need to aim in melee. The idea of the guildcity is also brilliant but it never got the work it should have had, if the GC had more Sim city and Dungeonn keeper in it I would have stayed a lot longer.
I do not buy games based on how good they look but I don't buy games below a certain graphics standard, if a new MMO today looks like Wow I would stay away, at least unless it was the best MMO ever made by far otherwise. If I didn't care about graphics at all I would be playing Everquest.
If it did, Funcom would be the biggest and richest producer of MMO games rather than Blizzard. Funcom knows how to produce fantastic graphics. They're just not very effective at pulling off the FUN in funcom when it comes to gameplay and overall quality experience. People need to seriously prioritize what they're looking for in a great MMO. Imho, it should be listed as follows in order:
1) fantastic gameplay (beginning to end-game)
2) Superior, overall quality (well polished with few bugs)
3) Innovative gameplay that distinguishes it from the others in the mmo space (the full vo mechanic with everything else tied to it, in Bioware's case)
.
.
.
.
99) Graphics
If graphics were at the top of my list, I would be a total fanboi of Funcom and go to all their conventions and crap on all the other mmos and think they are the greatest thing evah since sliced bread!!!
1) Depends on what your definition of "fantastic gameplay" is.
2) We'll see
3) Innovative game play does NOT apply here. At leats not that I see. And every dialogue scene Ive watched has been so yawn inducingly boring I want to dig my eyeballs out with a spoon.
Graphics? Tor doesnt look bad. So its got that going for it. I dont know if it looks particularly good either but its not bad. Animations dont look....overly great though.
I agree graphics dont make the game all by themselves. Its part of the package. Im not sure I would put it at 99 on list of things important to a game though. But maybe thats just me.
Comments
I dont even disagree with you , for the most part I DO agree. |However mmos do end up getting passed up based on graphics.
I do think you posting that link and mention blizard being funny, you should have seen WoW at release.
Hurm. Yes and no. It is true that beauty does not make love. But uglyness sure can hinder it. And beauty can help.
Ponder this well.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Good graphics in themselves does indeed not make a good MMO, but they are a part of the general picture and helps.
Good games have been sunk by bad graphics before. And I don't think making priorities on a list helps here, a MMO is a huge thing and it is all things together, the big and small things that makes a good game.
And in Funcoms defense isn't AoC really a bad game, it was just really buggy at launch and is a lot smaller than a MMO should be. There are worse games out there with more players. AoC do have some features that are excellent and among the best there is, like the collision detection and the fact that you don't need to aim in melee. The idea of the guildcity is also brilliant but it never got the work it should have had, if the GC had more Sim city and Dungeonn keeper in it I would have stayed a lot longer.
I do not buy games based on how good they look but I don't buy games below a certain graphics standard, if a new MMO today looks like Wow I would stay away, at least unless it was the best MMO ever made by far otherwise. If I didn't care about graphics at all I would be playing Everquest.
1) Depends on what your definition of "fantastic gameplay" is.
2) We'll see
3) Innovative game play does NOT apply here. At leats not that I see. And every dialogue scene Ive watched has been so yawn inducingly boring I want to dig my eyeballs out with a spoon.
Graphics? Tor doesnt look bad. So its got that going for it. I dont know if it looks particularly good either but its not bad. Animations dont look....overly great though.
I agree graphics dont make the game all by themselves. Its part of the package. Im not sure I would put it at 99 on list of things important to a game though. But maybe thats just me.