This is easily one of the stupidest threads I've ever read. Go watch a cartoon from the 70s, then the 80s, then the 90s, then from today. Now go watch movies and special effects meant to imitate real life. If you can't figure it out after that, you need to be put in a hospital for incompetence.
Originally posted by flizzer I dont get it either. WoW's graphics looked horrible the moment I saw them. I dont understand this "hold up over time" business either. This is just personal preference. If you like the WoW look then you find it holds up over time I suppose. Those like me who detest it , just don't understand this.
It doesn't make sense because it is a bunch of malarkey. Only people who liked WoW's art-style have no issue with this statement, and generally have no issue with EQ:N's new Art-Style.
Again, mainstreaming to get a larger audience and abandon the EQ fans that made the franchise possible. All around a load of poop .
The thing is here that we need to split taste and fact. What i stated is fact and if you like it or not is taste.
I agree it s a very ballsy move to move EQ from it´s traditional "realistic" look in to a more cartoony one. But the devs gave their reasons, one being it was easier to make expressive characters (this tie in to the whole face/cam thing they have) and offers a more robust system as they can stretch the boundaries of design a bit more. It also marks this a new game and not a sequal to the old games.
Not for the design of the Kitties.. I am sure it will be revamped because it looked like utter shite.
Now as for WoW´s style... It has held up since 2002 when they released WC3 and WoW was designed to take big cues from that game, a game that in it´s own took a lot of cues from the WC2 game released in 96-97. So it is safe to say that there was a big reason to go the route they went.
As for the "loyal" EQ fans... If they do not like EQ:N they have to very fine games that will see continued development... They are called EQ and EQ2
I think the EQN models look a lot more like Pixar-ized Disney than WoW.
And truth is, I think history has shown that Disney's as well as Pixar's art direction has held up over the years.
Personally, I like that art direction.
I won't deny that EQ2's art has held up well - certainly better than EQ's - but that doesn't necessarily mean Ithink that the char models in EQ2 are nothing less than butt ugly.
Still shots don't do WoW justice at all - that water looks much better in game - and yet that still looks pretty good.
Funny thing I've noticed - WoW looks worse in still shot; imo, EQ2 looks worse moving and better as stills. For what it's worth - graphics are multidementional and I don't think any screenshot gives anyone a clear picture of how 'good' the graphics are.
Originally posted by donpopuki I think the problem is people want first person shooter realistic graphics in a MMO. Not going to happen. Look at ESO's "realistic" graphics and notice how it doesn't even come close modern FPS fidelity. Why? Because mmos have huge environments and possibly a hundred players on the screen.
Besides EQ2 still runs like crap even to this day. I played the game for many years, struggled with the sh!t fps I always got. I went back a few months ago to try out my new rig hoping to finally see the game in ultra with at least 60 fps. I got about in 15 in Qeynos harbor. Wtf!
Yah, its called bad graphics engine. The Secret World is like that as well. No mater how good your PC is you will get huge massive stutter in game, and it rapes your FPS.
No, from a personal standpoint I want Art-Style and graphics that FIT the game they're meant to be in.
Cubeworld, perfect artstyle for the perfect environment. Cube oriented game with a Zelda Art-Style....PERFECT!
The Secret World, mediocre graphics but the Art-Style fits the world perfectly!!!
Age of Conan, again moderately "ok" graphics, but the Art-Style FITS perfectly.
Eve Online, what would have happaned had they chosen cartoony ships with faces? Again, EvE Online chose the correct path here.
World of Warcraft, its Art-Style is based on YEARS of Warcraft lore and graphic novels that were written alongside the series of games. The Game's art-style itself can be seen in Warcraft 2's little book that came with the game. WoW's art-style FITS the game, but the graphics were done so horribly on purpose. Originally WoW's graphics were done on PURPOSE to express the idea that you're "that unit" from Warcraft series only zoomed it hella-close and over-the-shoulder. It was genius, but ONLY fits WoW for that very reason!!!! It had a pre-established Art-Style and graphical layout that worked well!!!
I could go on for hours, but the idea remains the same. We're not talking about FPS shooter "ultra-realism" graphics here. We're talking about an Art-Style that FITS within the respective game. In this case EQ:N's Art-Style is completely out of place for an Everquest game, and should not be used.
There is actual science in this answer....WARNING... You may learn sumzthins!
Lifelike humans and graphics appeal to human nature, people find them pleasing to look at and interact with. BUT, there is a time when graphic cards and processors get better where the human mind can begin to notice flaws in the movements and reactions of the simulated humans. Science has shown that once these flaws are noticed, the mind counteracts with a sense of revulsion. As the game ages, and the graphics no longer look as lifelike, the human mind actually pushes it away.
I'll post a link to Uncanny Valley wiki, so people can read all about it and then adhere it to game graphics, because it does apply.
Cartoon graphics do not have this problem, because the image is not trying to emulate actual life, but a hand drawn depiction. This is where they say, the characters hold up over time.
Still shots don't do WoW justice at all - that water looks much better in game - and yet that still looks pretty good.
Funny thing I've noticed - WoW looks worse in still shot; imo, EQ2 looks worse moving and better as stills. For what it's worth - graphics are multidementional and I don't think any screenshot gives anyone a clear picture of how 'good' the graphics are.
yeah I've noticed that too. I've taken screenshots of just stunning stuff like the isle of thunder and dreaded wastes, then you look at the screenshot and it looks like half as good lol.
There is actual science in this answer....WARNING... You may learn sumzthins!
Lifelike humans and graphics appeal to human nature, people find them pleasing to look at and interact with. BUT, there is a time when graphic cards and processors get better where the human mind can begin to notice flaws in the movements and reactions of the simulated humans. Science has shown that once these flaws are noticed, the mind counteracts with a sense of revulsion. As the game ages, and the graphics no longer look as lifelike, the human mind actually pushes it away.
I'll post a link to Uncanny Valley wiki, so people can read all about it and then adhere it to game graphics, because it does apply.
Cartoon graphics do not have this problem, because the image is not trying to emulate actual life, but a hand drawn depiction. This is where they say, the characters hold up over time.
Although a fun thought exorcise this doesn't actually fit with this scenario. If it were in the "Uncanny Valley" then then an ArtStyle aimed towards a more realistic approach would look gross or wrong...they don't.
In this case it is the opposite direction. Cartoony graphics just look wrong, and seem like they're imitating life which just doesn't fit in realistic looking environments.
Anyone who says that the graphics from WoW look better than the graphics in EQ2 are just fan boys, there is no merit to that statement at all. WoW is basically a small step up from Playstation 1 Tomb Raider. boxy, barely any details. The world of Everquest 2 is actually quite beautiful, and if you ask me, still holds a flame to these new games. The issue is Everquest 2's engine was never optimized correctly for multi-core cpu. It is a majority CPU game. a Pentium 4 4ghz processor will run it better than a quad core 3.2ghz processor... but nevertheless, I don't agree with Everquest Next's graphical approach, but I do however, think I could deal with it, if the game was good as well.
There is actual science in this answer....WARNING... You may learn sumzthins!
Lifelike humans and graphics appeal to human nature, people find them pleasing to look at and interact with. BUT, there is a time when graphic cards and processors get better where the human mind can begin to notice flaws in the movements and reactions of the simulated humans. Science has shown that once these flaws are noticed, the mind counteracts with a sense of revulsion. As the game ages, and the graphics no longer look as lifelike, the human mind actually pushes it away.
I'll post a link to Uncanny Valley wiki, so people can read all about it and then adhere it to game graphics, because it does apply.
Cartoon graphics do not have this problem, because the image is not trying to emulate actual life, but a hand drawn depiction. This is where they say, the characters hold up over time.
+1 to this and the several other posts that also do a good job of explaining it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Still shots don't do WoW justice at all - that water looks much better in game - and yet that still looks pretty good.
Funny thing I've noticed - WoW looks worse in still shot; imo, EQ2 looks worse moving and better as stills. For what it's worth - graphics are multidementional and I don't think any screenshot gives anyone a clear picture of how 'good' the graphics are.
yeah I've noticed that too. I've taken screenshots of just stunning stuff like the isle of thunder and dreaded wastes, then you look at the screenshot and it looks like half as good lol.
Similarly, the same can be said for EQ2, but i wasn't posting those screenshots for the "water". It was primarily a comparison over the Art-Style, and NOT the graphics as a whole though everyone seems to lump those two together.
I can't say this enough: You cannot judge a game by screenshots alone.
You can show 100 screen shots proving a character model in EQ2 is more advanced than a Wow character model ... but when enter the game the feel is entirely different. When you log into Wow, especially the new updated graphics in Pandaria, the game simply feels WAY more immersive. Your character "fits" into the world better. The world seems more alive. It is far more artistically done than EQ2. The characters and combat feel more smooth and interactive.
I agree a game is far more than it's initial looks. Cartoon graphics does NOT mean the game will hold up over time. It is how the game looks and feels once you enter the game world and play the game. Wow did this perfectly. Another game could do it looking entirely different. Even some other cartoon-like mmos haven't fully managed to do what Wow did/does.
Wow has many faults but it certainly isn't with how it feels when playing it. Personally I feel TSW looks extremely good and feels amazing in game as well. Sadly it's faults elsewhere ruin it for me (primarily combat and limited skill options).
You chose nice EQ2 screens, but, in reality, it looks like plastic.
I prefer WoW from 2004 by a mile to EQ2 at present day. WoW may look patchy but at least it doesn't look like plastic.
No actually those are low quality screenshots i found on good that are years old.
In-game the game looks nothing like plastic. I'm just not hope right now to take screenshots in-game. The ones i posted are around "Medium" on the settings. I normally play on High, but I could do Ultra if I wanted (too much post processing on that setting though for me).
This is how i feel about cartoon, look at the evil Diablo 3 ..ohhh looks scary..I use it on my PC still so I dont forget how far Diablo 3 was compared to Diablo1 and 2 regarding graphic scariness.
There is actual science in this answer....WARNING... You may learn sumzthins!
Lifelike humans and graphics appeal to human nature, people find them pleasing to look at and interact with. BUT, there is a time when graphic cards and processors get better where the human mind can begin to notice flaws in the movements and reactions of the simulated humans. Science has shown that once these flaws are noticed, the mind counteracts with a sense of revulsion. As the game ages, and the graphics no longer look as lifelike, the human mind actually pushes it away.
I'll post a link to Uncanny Valley wiki, so people can read all about it and then adhere it to game graphics, because it does apply.
Cartoon graphics do not have this problem, because the image is not trying to emulate actual life, but a hand drawn depiction. This is where they say, the characters hold up over time.
Although a fun thought exorcise this doesn't actually fit with this scenario. If it were in the "Uncanny Valley" then then an ArtStyle aimed towards a more realistic approach would look gross or wrong...they don't.
In this case it is the opposite direction. Cartoony graphics just look wrong, and seem like they're imitating life which just doesn't fit in realistic looking environments.
If that were the case, explain why Disney classic movies still outsell many of the newer movies released.
Just because you do not like the answer does not make it less valid.
This is how i feel about cartoon, look at the evil Diablo 3 ..ohhh looks scary..I use it on my PC still so I dont forget how far Diablo 3 was compared to Diablo1 and 2 regarding graphic scariness.
There is actual science in this answer....WARNING... You may learn sumzthins!
Lifelike humans and graphics appeal to human nature, people find them pleasing to look at and interact with. BUT, there is a time when graphic cards and processors get better where the human mind can begin to notice flaws in the movements and reactions of the simulated humans. Science has shown that once these flaws are noticed, the mind counteracts with a sense of revulsion. As the game ages, and the graphics no longer look as lifelike, the human mind actually pushes it away.
I'll post a link to Uncanny Valley wiki, so people can read all about it and then adhere it to game graphics, because it does apply.
Cartoon graphics do not have this problem, because the image is not trying to emulate actual life, but a hand drawn depiction. This is where they say, the characters hold up over time.
Although a fun thought exorcise this doesn't actually fit with this scenario. If it were in the "Uncanny Valley" then then an ArtStyle aimed towards a more realistic approach would look gross or wrong...they don't.
In this case it is the opposite direction. Cartoony graphics just look wrong, and seem like they're imitating life which just doesn't fit in realistic looking environments.
If that were the case, explain why Disney classic movies still outsell many of the newer movies released.
Just because you do not like the answer does not make it less valid.
Probably because the originals didn't sell out for cheap gimmicks and lame cultural jokes. The originals are the best because they excel at family oriented moments, and showing people how moral values can be protrayed within a cultural medium.
In other words the classics had more respect for themselves and their genre than to dive low just for money and cheap laughs. It had nothing to do with their "graphics".
Also, it should be pointed out that the originals were all hand-drawn, and nowadays everyone is trying to do weird cartoony 3D model based stuff that doesn't work out well. They're getting there though, Wall-E is a prime example !
There is actual science in this answer....WARNING... You may learn sumzthins!
Lifelike humans and graphics appeal to human nature, people find them pleasing to look at and interact with. BUT, there is a time when graphic cards and processors get better where the human mind can begin to notice flaws in the movements and reactions of the simulated humans. Science has shown that once these flaws are noticed, the mind counteracts with a sense of revulsion. As the game ages, and the graphics no longer look as lifelike, the human mind actually pushes it away.
I'll post a link to Uncanny Valley wiki, so people can read all about it and then adhere it to game graphics, because it does apply.
Cartoon graphics do not have this problem, because the image is not trying to emulate actual life, but a hand drawn depiction. This is where they say, the characters hold up over time.
Comments
This is easily one of the stupidest threads I've ever read. Go watch a cartoon from the 70s, then the 80s, then the 90s, then from today. Now go watch movies and special effects meant to imitate real life. If you can't figure it out after that, you need to be put in a hospital for incompetence.
Whether or not you like the style is irrelevant.
The thing is here that we need to split taste and fact. What i stated is fact and if you like it or not is taste.
I agree it s a very ballsy move to move EQ from it´s traditional "realistic" look in to a more cartoony one. But the devs gave their reasons, one being it was easier to make expressive characters (this tie in to the whole face/cam thing they have) and offers a more robust system as they can stretch the boundaries of design a bit more. It also marks this a new game and not a sequal to the old games.
Not for the design of the Kitties.. I am sure it will be revamped because it looked like utter shite.
Now as for WoW´s style... It has held up since 2002 when they released WC3 and WoW was designed to take big cues from that game, a game that in it´s own took a lot of cues from the WC2 game released in 96-97. So it is safe to say that there was a big reason to go the route they went.
As for the "loyal" EQ fans... If they do not like EQ:N they have to very fine games that will see continued development... They are called EQ and EQ2
This have been a good conversation
I think the EQN models look a lot more like Pixar-ized Disney than WoW.
And truth is, I think history has shown that Disney's as well as Pixar's art direction has held up over the years.
Personally, I like that art direction.
I won't deny that EQ2's art has held up well - certainly better than EQ's - but that doesn't necessarily mean Ithink that the char models in EQ2 are nothing less than butt ugly.
Opinions are as they should be, our own.
Those screenshots aren't from pandaria, where they best new graphics are. Pandaria on Ultra looks really really good.
Look at the rain even causes ripples in the water!
You chose nice EQ2 screens, but, in reality, it looks like plastic.
I prefer WoW from 2004 by a mile to EQ2 at present day. WoW may look patchy but at least it doesn't look like plastic.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
Still shots don't do WoW justice at all - that water looks much better in game - and yet that still looks pretty good.
Funny thing I've noticed - WoW looks worse in still shot; imo, EQ2 looks worse moving and better as stills. For what it's worth - graphics are multidementional and I don't think any screenshot gives anyone a clear picture of how 'good' the graphics are.
No, from a personal standpoint I want Art-Style and graphics that FIT the game they're meant to be in.
Cubeworld, perfect artstyle for the perfect environment. Cube oriented game with a Zelda Art-Style....PERFECT!
The Secret World, mediocre graphics but the Art-Style fits the world perfectly!!!
Age of Conan, again moderately "ok" graphics, but the Art-Style FITS perfectly.
Eve Online, what would have happaned had they chosen cartoony ships with faces? Again, EvE Online chose the correct path here.
World of Warcraft, its Art-Style is based on YEARS of Warcraft lore and graphic novels that were written alongside the series of games. The Game's art-style itself can be seen in Warcraft 2's little book that came with the game. WoW's art-style FITS the game, but the graphics were done so horribly on purpose. Originally WoW's graphics were done on PURPOSE to express the idea that you're "that unit" from Warcraft series only zoomed it hella-close and over-the-shoulder. It was genius, but ONLY fits WoW for that very reason!!!! It had a pre-established Art-Style and graphical layout that worked well!!!
I could go on for hours, but the idea remains the same. We're not talking about FPS shooter "ultra-realism" graphics here. We're talking about an Art-Style that FITS within the respective game. In this case EQ:N's Art-Style is completely out of place for an Everquest game, and should not be used.
It's fine, they fit your normally offensive and snarky half-baked comments
!
I meant that in a complimentary way, but somehow it came out wrong
There is actual science in this answer....WARNING... You may learn sumzthins!
Lifelike humans and graphics appeal to human nature, people find them pleasing to look at and interact with. BUT, there is a time when graphic cards and processors get better where the human mind can begin to notice flaws in the movements and reactions of the simulated humans. Science has shown that once these flaws are noticed, the mind counteracts with a sense of revulsion. As the game ages, and the graphics no longer look as lifelike, the human mind actually pushes it away.
I'll post a link to Uncanny Valley wiki, so people can read all about it and then adhere it to game graphics, because it does apply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
Cartoon graphics do not have this problem, because the image is not trying to emulate actual life, but a hand drawn depiction. This is where they say, the characters hold up over time.
yeah I've noticed that too. I've taken screenshots of just stunning stuff like the isle of thunder and dreaded wastes, then you look at the screenshot and it looks like half as good lol.
Although a fun thought exorcise this doesn't actually fit with this scenario. If it were in the "Uncanny Valley" then then an ArtStyle aimed towards a more realistic approach would look gross or wrong...they don't.
In this case it is the opposite direction. Cartoony graphics just look wrong, and seem like they're imitating life which just doesn't fit in realistic looking environments.
Killing dragons is my shit
Thank you...I think... :-)
+1 to this and the several other posts that also do a good job of explaining it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Similarly, the same can be said for EQ2, but i wasn't posting those screenshots for the "water". It was primarily a comparison over the Art-Style, and NOT the graphics as a whole though everyone seems to lump those two together.
I can't say this enough: You cannot judge a game by screenshots alone.
You can show 100 screen shots proving a character model in EQ2 is more advanced than a Wow character model ... but when enter the game the feel is entirely different. When you log into Wow, especially the new updated graphics in Pandaria, the game simply feels WAY more immersive. Your character "fits" into the world better. The world seems more alive. It is far more artistically done than EQ2. The characters and combat feel more smooth and interactive.
I agree a game is far more than it's initial looks. Cartoon graphics does NOT mean the game will hold up over time. It is how the game looks and feels once you enter the game world and play the game. Wow did this perfectly. Another game could do it looking entirely different. Even some other cartoon-like mmos haven't fully managed to do what Wow did/does.
Wow has many faults but it certainly isn't with how it feels when playing it. Personally I feel TSW looks extremely good and feels amazing in game as well. Sadly it's faults elsewhere ruin it for me (primarily combat and limited skill options).
You stay sassy!
No actually those are low quality screenshots i found on good that are years old.
In-game the game looks nothing like plastic. I'm just not hope right now to take screenshots in-game. The ones i posted are around "Medium" on the settings. I normally play on High, but I could do Ultra if I wanted (too much post processing on that setting though for me).
This is how i feel about cartoon, look at the evil Diablo 3 ..ohhh looks scary..I use it on my PC still so I dont forget how far Diablo 3 was compared to Diablo1 and 2 regarding graphic scariness.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/690/evildiablo3.jpg/
If that were the case, explain why Disney classic movies still outsell many of the newer movies released.
Just because you do not like the answer does not make it less valid.
ROFL!!!
I played the game a few weeks ago, it definitely looks like plastic.
http://www.gameogre.com/everquest2.jpg
http://mmohuts.com/wp-content/gallery/everquest-2-overview/everquest-2-quest-giver.jpg?ec9f9b
http://blog.weflyspitfires.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/eq2_000221.jpg
PLASTIC.
Also, the game is super old and I can't even run it on max settings on my computer for some reason. Wut?
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
Probably because the originals didn't sell out for cheap gimmicks and lame cultural jokes. The originals are the best because they excel at family oriented moments, and showing people how moral values can be protrayed within a cultural medium.
In other words the classics had more respect for themselves and their genre than to dive low just for money and cheap laughs. It had nothing to do with their "graphics".
Also, it should be pointed out that the originals were all hand-drawn, and nowadays everyone is trying to do weird cartoony 3D model based stuff that doesn't work out well. They're getting there though, Wall-E is a prime example
!
+1 to well written and informative post.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?