I am with the "simpler graphics" crowd if it means more sandbox-style player freedom and immersive worlds. I would even go with 2D if it meant feature-rich.
I enjoy realistic graphics. But it seems they come at a price in gameplay.
How the graphics play matters. You don't play screenshots. There are tons of variables that factor into what level of graphical fidelity best facilitates the gameplay experience that is being delivered.
When you are delivering a product that allows for player interaction with the graphics, it only stands to reason that some graphical fidelity might be compromised. I thought this would be obvious to anyone familiar with mmorpgs and the complex nature of the development environment they are born from.
That said, I think EQN looks fantastic. The art direction has personality and heart. It looks like its own game. A lot of games being developed are indistinguishable from one another without captions delineating which is which. EQN looks hot. To me, of course. Many will no doubt not be fond of the aesthetic, but that goes for any game.
If (and ONLY if) EQN has gameplay that lives up to what SOE is proposing, then I will actually be surprised that the game looks as good as it does.
I've looked at Archeage and Black Gold/Desert etc etc.
To me, subjectively there's something a bit off with the shiny graphics. It looks plastic and static sheet covering everything?
Whereas that's sort of the point I'm not really being clear about with SOE's engine LightForge (or whatever it's called) it looks like the world fits together even without the voxel stuff. Great terrain in PS2 and EQN.
So I don't believe tech is the only determinant of "good graphics". I'd say how jarring somethings are. For eg the characters in AA and BG they seem very floaty.
Anyway I hope that opinion adds moat of dust to the ongoing graphics discussions. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
Someone needs to plaster Apoc's house with the Uncanny Valley graph before he looks more like an ass picking fights for no reason.
As is : OP you need to step back and decide which matters more: Aesthetics or graphics, I kinda like EQN's aesthetics and I would never call something like Archeage realistic or any of the other realistic MMOs because they are so far up the ass end of the Uncanny Valley that you cannot really enjoy them if you have any analytical capabilities.
Cryengine + destructible environment would really make cryegine live up to it name. It will make everyone cry, beside those who have access to super computers. The grapics in itself however look better I agree. I am personally looking for a good experience. I do not care if it looks like real-life or pong.
Originally posted by obii I wish developers would put a quarter of what they spend on graphics into game design and features :P
You do realize that EVERYTHING you see in a game has to have a texture on it?Grpahics should be the number 1 goal in a game because it covers every single aspect of a game.You want cool armor,well it has to have dsetailed textures.Yo uwant cool weapons ,same thing,you want nice houses, again graphics.
How can you immerse yourself in a world where the rock textures don't look like rock and tree bark does not look like tree bark.
Your spell effects again graphics,just looking at other players is again graphics even your teleport animation is all about graphics,mounts again graphics.
it does not matter how good a game is in the database of statistics,without solid graphics,there is literally no game.This is not like reading a book,this is 3D video gaming,that is visuals.How many people would enjoy a solid movie if in black n white and not colour?
I always wonder what exactly people mean by GAME>graphics because in the 3d gaming world,it is about graphics,otherwise it is not 3d gaming.I don't see too many rushing back to play EQ1 or DAOC or AC or Ultima,those games are god ugly now and nothing they have in game play can make it fun to hangout in such ugliness.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The only thing i dislike from the EQNext Lion is the face. Everything else looks better than the old EQ lion, but the face looks like Simba had a baby with Goofy......
I've looked at Archeage and Black Gold/Desert etc etc.
To me, subjectively there's something a bit off with the shiny graphics. It looks plastic and static sheet covering everything?
Whereas that's sort of the point I'm not really being clear about with SOE's engine LightForge (or whatever it's called) it looks like the world fits together even without the voxel stuff. Great terrain in PS2 and EQN.
So I don't believe tech is the only determinant of "good graphics". I'd say how jarring somethings are. For eg the characters in AA and BG they seem very floaty.
Anyway I hope that opinion adds moat of dust to the ongoing graphics discussions. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
Actually, tech IS the only determining factor when it comes to graphics.
Problem is that most people (and nearly everyone in this thread) seem to confuse 'graphics' with 'art style'.
Graphics are the technology that goes into making the art style look good. It's the resolution of the textures, the lightning / shading, the aliasing, reflections / refractions, shadow resolution, draw limitations, etc. It's highly objective.
Art style, on the other hand, is whether you think the overall look / feel of the game works. Or whether or not you feel it works better than in another game. And this is where the majority of the disputes really exist. EQN's art style is both current and outdated at the same time.
It is a throwback to some older games that used less taxing graphics to allow for more robust gameplay and server tech. However, they managed to do it in such a way that mirrors what was done in games like Bioshock, Dishonored, and Team Fortress 2. All of which have great art styles.
As for graphics, they are current enough that they aren't obscelete. Which is about all you can hope for from an MMO. Complaining about less than current graphics in an MMO is kind of ridiculous, tbh, because MMOs are ALWAYS behind the curve in that regard. They simply have to be. Games like Monster Hunter can get away with better graphics because they are much more segregated games. The world is much more heavily sliced into smaller chunks, whereas most MMOs try to make themselves as large as possible.
Someone said that EQNext graphics are on par with recent MMO.
I disagree.
So one person stated his opinion about the graphics, and it made you go on a forum crusade to convince people he is not right? What do you want to achieve, and why? As for the claim itself, it depends on what factors you take into consideration.
If you mean texture size, or polygon count, then yes - the other game is superior. Question would be, does it matter and who cares?
I don't really care if textures are 1024x1024 or 4096x4096, since all the unnecessary sharpness only results in noise and the lack of good design renders that quality useless. And that is exactly what your examples represent. Those cryengine games only add numbers to technical parameters, but this isn't really anything that adds to the quality, since it is always in hands of designers.
It isn't really a challenge to increase numbers, but to match that level of realism with design is the real problem. Try making those characters express emotions in a realistic way. Or make house that actually has more than one bed for entire family and some kind of drainpipes on the roof, or a freaking toilet to make a little more sense... that is what developers fail to do. Texture size increases, actuall details do not.
So depending on what happens with EQN, it could be superior in terms of design. Probably will with all the sandbox possibilities.
By the way, I don't see any logic in comparing voxel game to regular game. Both the guy that claimed it is on par, and you should rethink that.
If Black Desert is any indication I'm glad they went with these graphics. That game looks clunkier than heck. Gameplay always trumps graphics. Stylistic but runs well is always better than realistic and clunky.
Someone needs to plaster Apoc's house with the Uncanny Valley graph before he looks more like an ass picking fights for no reason.
As is : OP you need to step back and decide which matters more: Aesthetics or graphics, I kinda like EQN's aesthetics and I would never call something like Archeage realistic or any of the other realistic MMOs because they are so far up the ass end of the Uncanny Valley that you cannot really enjoy them if you have any analytical capabilities.
You have a very smart way of calling other people stupid.
Do you think i give a damn about some hypothesized emotional response study that was from the 70s? AA,Bless,Repop,SS and any other well made realistic game, would like to have a word with Masahiro Mori. Your study sites robotics and most recently, CGI form movies like tintin and the the polar express.
Show me a study with the above games and well talk.
EQNext graphics are definitely a step backwards in my opinion - and anyone trying to say they are just as good as the high quality releases over the last few years either are neck deep in fanboism or denial.
While I find most EQ:N screenshots to be gorgeous in their own right, I really need to be in game to judge the graphical fidelity accurately and not just jump to conclusions. People oft misunderstand the difference between aesthetics and graphics. Though only focusing on limitations blinds one from seeing what is in front of them; making comparisons takes a sort of magic out of what something could be.
Though with regards to stylized graphics lasting longer than "realistic" graphics, this was true when "realistic" graphics were pure crap. You could have a beautifully and articulately crafted, hand drawn PS1 game that people laughed at because they had their 32 bit 3-d "amazing" characters back in the day... and today we will look at both games and just remark at how beautiful the hand drawn 2-d graphics are and laugh at the quality of the 3d one. This is where stylized graphics outstage games that try to push the capabilities of the machine they're playing on.
Indeed there is little doubt that we will reach a point in graphics where they are perfectly picture realistic to us. It will be at that point where they will no longer be outdated to the human eye no matter how much time goes by (without ocular enhancements, which could be the next stage beyond that and thus make them outdated again) other than adding fluff additions or more realism such as individual rain drops falling into puddles actually formed by said drops. Though I do not think we're at that point (so long as there is any mild improvement to be made that isn't just fluff, there will always be the new and better in accordance to Moore's law and how graphics are supposedly improved by 25% each year). Therefore, I do believe the "Stylized" argument still holds much ground as we have seen in gaming history (unless one can honestly say the 3-d model of a ps1 era game is more beautiful than hand painted pictures, animations and characters in this day and age).
Though you always have those "here and now" people that we laugh at in hindsight (hindsight being 5-10 years in the future). Kind've how we laugh at how people did things decades ago with our knowledge today. They have little to no foresight, and oft speak of things they haven't played to make assertions. In addition, they also tend to forget about the sacrifices and consequences of having such content, especially in MMOs when speedy and bulky updates are expected. The higher the graphics, the bigger the team needs to be to bring out the same content as stylized games. Bigger teams means it has to be more of a success lest it be doomed to maintenance mode (which, again will give even less updates aside from balance due to it taking so much longer to craft realistic content). Graphics in an MMO can therefore be attributed to gimmicks and targeted towards a very fickle crowd that will just go to the next big Graphical advancement as opposed to gameplay and game updates.
The point of a MMO is to innovate and entertain; to provide worth to your monthly fee and bring a massive amount of content (the genre itself is already one of the biggest projects to undertake with thousands of hours of gameplay in most cases). Granted, there is also the saying of not improving on the round wheel if it still is in working order. Those who view Graphics as the sole deciding factor of if they will play it are likely in the wrong genre. Though with that said, I do not mean to chastise those who simply have it as a preference and will play any game that is entertaining for them.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
As to the OP: I am on the fence. I don't need photorealism, but some more details would do EQ:N good. Take the graphics of GW2 as example, it looks very lush and detailled without being photorealistic. I hope SOE does tune up their graphics a bit, yet.
If it means that with the added detail comes the horrible culling that GW2 has, I'll rather take the simpler models any day.
Culling? Sorry, I tried to translate it, I don't know the word. Did you mean something like lag??
If so, I never had any considerable lag, even in large WvW zergs. *shrug*
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I like sweet graphics as much as the next guy, but for EQN, I'd rather they stick to something that will run on my system at 60fps while using OCULUS Rift , compared to sitting at 30FPS with Archeage high detail, or low GFX settings that look shit anyway if you need to get it up to 60fps for Rift suppport
Originally posted by ElikalAs to the OP: I am on the fence. I don't need photorealism, but some more details would do EQ:N good. Take the graphics of GW2 as example, it looks very lush and detailled without being photorealistic. I hope SOE does tune up their graphics a bit, yet.
If it means that with the added detail comes the horrible culling that GW2 has, I'll rather take the simpler models any day.
Culling? Sorry, I tried to translate it, I don't know the word. Did you mean something like lag??
If so, I never had any considerable lag, even in large WvW zergs. *shrug*
Culling is computer programming technique that only renders what needs to be on the screen.
Ie: a bush hidden behind a house is not drawn.
In Gw2: Players too far in the distance, or too many on screen are not drawn.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
I choose my games based on the gameplay not graphics. You can have the most highly detailed and photo realistic game and be boring as hell. If I want that I just open a window or open my eyes. I play videogames because they are games. Want me to say it? Yes EQN's graphics suck! Black Desert's graphics are better. Hell FFXIV looks more beautiful and so does TERA. EQN's graphics is not what has me hyped about it.
Originally posted by donpopuki I choose my games based on the gameplay not graphics. You can have the most highly detailed and photo realistic game and be boring as hell. If I want that I just open a window or open my eyes. I play videogames because they are games. Want me to say it? Yes EQN's graphics suck! Black Desert's graphics are better. Hell FFXIV looks more beautiful and so does TERA. EQN's graphics is not what has me hyped about it.
This guy has it about right.
For me, it's the new blending machine that is Everquest Next.
Sure many of these elements have been tried before in plenty of MMO's and single player RPGs.
Nothing this scale with all these elements has been presented yet. That and the IP Everquest is the draw for me.
I like the idea of being able to tweak my class as I see fit whenever out of combat to suit my need.
The idea of uncovering lost areas below the surface had me hooked when I saw a video example.
Building many of the cities again that we all know from nothing and defending them when needed also is very interesting.
The mobs of Everquest and similar class archtypes of old, combined with all new is also huge.
Crafting customizations to weapons looks quite robust.
these are just some of the things I am looking forward to. If the graphics are of average quality to the last 4 years or so...that will work.
Originally posted by Margulis EQNext graphics are definitely a step backwards in my opinion - and anyone trying to say they are just as good as the high quality releases over the last few years either are neck deep in fanboism or denial.
Nobody is saying this. They are saying they are as high quality as other MMORPG that weren't just awful in the past few years. Name a MMORPG with good graphics that wasn't just terrible in the past 3 years and I will give you a prize.
The entire point right now is that realistic graphics come with a price and that price is over the top awful game play. There has not been a single heavy graphics MMORPG that hasn't been terrible from a gameplay standpoint at this point.
Cryengine + destructible environment would really make cryegine live up to it name. It will make everyone cry, beside those who have access to super computers. The grapics in itself however look better I agree. I am personally looking for a good experience. I do not care if it looks like real-life or pong.
As to the OP: I am on the fence. I don't need photorealism, but some more details would do EQ:N good. Take the graphics of GW2 as example, it looks very lush and detailled without being photorealistic. I hope SOE does tune up their graphics a bit, yet.
If it means that with the added detail comes the horrible culling that GW2 has, I'll rather take the simpler models any day.
Culling? Sorry, I tried to translate it, I don't know the word. Did you mean something like lag??
If so, I never had any considerable lag, even in large WvW zergs. *shrug*
Nitth explained it already. Basically you would run into a WvW zerg, but would initially only see a few enemies. After a while the computer would eventually render the remaining models and suddenly the fight you thought will be 5v5 turned out to be 5v50 instead.
They "solved" the problem later on by adding sliders, where you can select the level of detail of the enemy models in WvW. I dare you to crank those settings to maximum and have a playable framerate.
Obviously we don't know if EQNext will handle large masses of player characters any better, but at least with less detail per character it should be doable.
On the subject of detail, by the way. Why does everyone say detail = texture resolution + polygon amount? Again I dare you to play Brothers. It has quite low polygon count and not very high res textures, but for me it's one of the most beautiful games ever made. Strong art style & qualified artists win over technical detail every time. Of course there is nothing preventing to have both, but I have yet to see one example where it's done right (GW2 comes closest at the moment).
Comments
I am with the "simpler graphics" crowd if it means more sandbox-style player freedom and immersive worlds. I would even go with 2D if it meant feature-rich.
I enjoy realistic graphics. But it seems they come at a price in gameplay.
SWTOR Referral Bonus!
Referral link
7 day subscriber level access
Returning players get 1 free server transfer
Leveling assistance items given to new player!
See all perks Here
How the graphics play matters. You don't play screenshots. There are tons of variables that factor into what level of graphical fidelity best facilitates the gameplay experience that is being delivered.
When you are delivering a product that allows for player interaction with the graphics, it only stands to reason that some graphical fidelity might be compromised. I thought this would be obvious to anyone familiar with mmorpgs and the complex nature of the development environment they are born from.
That said, I think EQN looks fantastic. The art direction has personality and heart. It looks like its own game. A lot of games being developed are indistinguishable from one another without captions delineating which is which. EQN looks hot. To me, of course. Many will no doubt not be fond of the aesthetic, but that goes for any game.
If (and ONLY if) EQN has gameplay that lives up to what SOE is proposing, then I will actually be surprised that the game looks as good as it does.
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
I've looked at Archeage and Black Gold/Desert etc etc.
To me, subjectively there's something a bit off with the shiny graphics. It looks plastic and static sheet covering everything?
Whereas that's sort of the point I'm not really being clear about with SOE's engine LightForge (or whatever it's called) it looks like the world fits together even without the voxel stuff. Great terrain in PS2 and EQN.
So I don't believe tech is the only determinant of "good graphics". I'd say how jarring somethings are. For eg the characters in AA and BG they seem very floaty.
Anyway I hope that opinion adds moat of dust to the ongoing graphics discussions. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Someone needs to plaster Apoc's house with the Uncanny Valley graph before he looks more like an ass picking fights for no reason.
As is : OP you need to step back and decide which matters more: Aesthetics or graphics, I kinda like EQN's aesthetics and I would never call something like Archeage realistic or any of the other realistic MMOs because they are so far up the ass end of the Uncanny Valley that you cannot really enjoy them if you have any analytical capabilities.
Cryengine + destructible environment would really make cryegine live up to it name. It will make everyone cry, beside those who have access to super computers. The grapics in itself however look better I agree. I am personally looking for a good experience. I do not care if it looks like real-life or pong.
You do realize that EVERYTHING you see in a game has to have a texture on it?Grpahics should be the number 1 goal in a game because it covers every single aspect of a game.You want cool armor,well it has to have dsetailed textures.Yo uwant cool weapons ,same thing,you want nice houses, again graphics.
How can you immerse yourself in a world where the rock textures don't look like rock and tree bark does not look like tree bark.
Your spell effects again graphics,just looking at other players is again graphics even your teleport animation is all about graphics,mounts again graphics.
it does not matter how good a game is in the database of statistics,without solid graphics,there is literally no game.This is not like reading a book,this is 3D video gaming,that is visuals.How many people would enjoy a solid movie if in black n white and not colour?
I always wonder what exactly people mean by GAME>graphics because in the 3d gaming world,it is about graphics,otherwise it is not 3d gaming.I don't see too many rushing back to play EQ1 or DAOC or AC or Ultima,those games are god ugly now and nothing they have in game play can make it fun to hangout in such ugliness.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Actually, tech IS the only determining factor when it comes to graphics.
Problem is that most people (and nearly everyone in this thread) seem to confuse 'graphics' with 'art style'.
Graphics are the technology that goes into making the art style look good. It's the resolution of the textures, the lightning / shading, the aliasing, reflections / refractions, shadow resolution, draw limitations, etc. It's highly objective.
Art style, on the other hand, is whether you think the overall look / feel of the game works. Or whether or not you feel it works better than in another game. And this is where the majority of the disputes really exist. EQN's art style is both current and outdated at the same time.
It is a throwback to some older games that used less taxing graphics to allow for more robust gameplay and server tech. However, they managed to do it in such a way that mirrors what was done in games like Bioshock, Dishonored, and Team Fortress 2. All of which have great art styles.
As for graphics, they are current enough that they aren't obscelete. Which is about all you can hope for from an MMO. Complaining about less than current graphics in an MMO is kind of ridiculous, tbh, because MMOs are ALWAYS behind the curve in that regard. They simply have to be. Games like Monster Hunter can get away with better graphics because they are much more segregated games. The world is much more heavily sliced into smaller chunks, whereas most MMOs try to make themselves as large as possible.
So one person stated his opinion about the graphics, and it made you go on a forum crusade to convince people he is not right? What do you want to achieve, and why? As for the claim itself, it depends on what factors you take into consideration.
If you mean texture size, or polygon count, then yes - the other game is superior. Question would be, does it matter and who cares?
I don't really care if textures are 1024x1024 or 4096x4096, since all the unnecessary sharpness only results in noise and the lack of good design renders that quality useless. And that is exactly what your examples represent. Those cryengine games only add numbers to technical parameters, but this isn't really anything that adds to the quality, since it is always in hands of designers.
It isn't really a challenge to increase numbers, but to match that level of realism with design is the real problem. Try making those characters express emotions in a realistic way. Or make house that actually has more than one bed for entire family and some kind of drainpipes on the roof, or a freaking toilet to make a little more sense... that is what developers fail to do. Texture size increases, actuall details do not.
So depending on what happens with EQN, it could be superior in terms of design. Probably will with all the sandbox possibilities.
By the way, I don't see any logic in comparing voxel game to regular game. Both the guy that claimed it is on par, and you should rethink that.
If Black Desert is any indication I'm glad they went with these graphics. That game looks clunkier than heck. Gameplay always trumps graphics. Stylistic but runs well is always better than realistic and clunky.
You have a very smart way of calling other people stupid.
Do you think i give a damn about some hypothesized emotional response study that was from the 70s? AA,Bless,Repop,SS and any other well made realistic game, would like to have a word with Masahiro Mori. Your study sites robotics and most recently, CGI form movies like tintin and the the polar express.
Show me a study with the above games and well talk.
Posting in a my opinion is fact thread.
I don't have strong feels on EQnext either way just dropping in to point out some hypocrisy.
I'm already laughing my ass off at the EQNext graphics, so now what?
While I find most EQ:N screenshots to be gorgeous in their own right, I really need to be in game to judge the graphical fidelity accurately and not just jump to conclusions. People oft misunderstand the difference between aesthetics and graphics. Though only focusing on limitations blinds one from seeing what is in front of them; making comparisons takes a sort of magic out of what something could be.
Though with regards to stylized graphics lasting longer than "realistic" graphics, this was true when "realistic" graphics were pure crap. You could have a beautifully and articulately crafted, hand drawn PS1 game that people laughed at because they had their 32 bit 3-d "amazing" characters back in the day... and today we will look at both games and just remark at how beautiful the hand drawn 2-d graphics are and laugh at the quality of the 3d one. This is where stylized graphics outstage games that try to push the capabilities of the machine they're playing on.
Indeed there is little doubt that we will reach a point in graphics where they are perfectly picture realistic to us. It will be at that point where they will no longer be outdated to the human eye no matter how much time goes by (without ocular enhancements, which could be the next stage beyond that and thus make them outdated again) other than adding fluff additions or more realism such as individual rain drops falling into puddles actually formed by said drops. Though I do not think we're at that point (so long as there is any mild improvement to be made that isn't just fluff, there will always be the new and better in accordance to Moore's law and how graphics are supposedly improved by 25% each year). Therefore, I do believe the "Stylized" argument still holds much ground as we have seen in gaming history (unless one can honestly say the 3-d model of a ps1 era game is more beautiful than hand painted pictures, animations and characters in this day and age).
Though you always have those "here and now" people that we laugh at in hindsight (hindsight being 5-10 years in the future). Kind've how we laugh at how people did things decades ago with our knowledge today. They have little to no foresight, and oft speak of things they haven't played to make assertions. In addition, they also tend to forget about the sacrifices and consequences of having such content, especially in MMOs when speedy and bulky updates are expected. The higher the graphics, the bigger the team needs to be to bring out the same content as stylized games. Bigger teams means it has to be more of a success lest it be doomed to maintenance mode (which, again will give even less updates aside from balance due to it taking so much longer to craft realistic content). Graphics in an MMO can therefore be attributed to gimmicks and targeted towards a very fickle crowd that will just go to the next big Graphical advancement as opposed to gameplay and game updates.
The point of a MMO is to innovate and entertain; to provide worth to your monthly fee and bring a massive amount of content (the genre itself is already one of the biggest projects to undertake with thousands of hours of gameplay in most cases). Granted, there is also the saying of not improving on the round wheel if it still is in working order. Those who view Graphics as the sole deciding factor of if they will play it are likely in the wrong genre. Though with that said, I do not mean to chastise those who simply have it as a preference and will play any game that is entertaining for them.
Culling? Sorry, I tried to translate it, I don't know the word. Did you mean something like lag??
If so, I never had any considerable lag, even in large WvW zergs. *shrug*
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Culling is computer programming technique that only renders what needs to be on the screen.
Ie: a bush hidden behind a house is not drawn.
In Gw2: Players too far in the distance, or too many on screen are not drawn.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
This guy has it about right.
For me, it's the new blending machine that is Everquest Next.
Sure many of these elements have been tried before in plenty of MMO's and single player RPGs.
Nothing this scale with all these elements has been presented yet. That and the IP Everquest is the draw for me.
I like the idea of being able to tweak my class as I see fit whenever out of combat to suit my need.
The idea of uncovering lost areas below the surface had me hooked when I saw a video example.
Building many of the cities again that we all know from nothing and defending them when needed also is very interesting.
The mobs of Everquest and similar class archtypes of old, combined with all new is also huge.
Crafting customizations to weapons looks quite robust.
these are just some of the things I am looking forward to. If the graphics are of average quality to the last 4 years or so...that will work.
Nobody is saying this. They are saying they are as high quality as other MMORPG that weren't just awful in the past few years. Name a MMORPG with good graphics that wasn't just terrible in the past 3 years and I will give you a prize.
The entire point right now is that realistic graphics come with a price and that price is over the top awful game play. There has not been a single heavy graphics MMORPG that hasn't been terrible from a gameplay standpoint at this point.
Get your tissue out
Nitth explained it already. Basically you would run into a WvW zerg, but would initially only see a few enemies. After a while the computer would eventually render the remaining models and suddenly the fight you thought will be 5v5 turned out to be 5v50 instead.
They "solved" the problem later on by adding sliders, where you can select the level of detail of the enemy models in WvW. I dare you to crank those settings to maximum and have a playable framerate.
Obviously we don't know if EQNext will handle large masses of player characters any better, but at least with less detail per character it should be doable.
On the subject of detail, by the way. Why does everyone say detail = texture resolution + polygon amount? Again I dare you to play Brothers. It has quite low polygon count and not very high res textures, but for me it's one of the most beautiful games ever made. Strong art style & qualified artists win over technical detail every time. Of course there is nothing preventing to have both, but I have yet to see one example where it's done right (GW2 comes closest at the moment).