The games I have played the longest were EQ1, AC and now LOTRO. Over the years I have taken time out to play more graphical games but ultimately I always returned to these 3 based on game-play features that met my personal objectives.
If Pantheon delivers on its game play objectives and offers even the same graphics I have already seen in their preview videos, It could very well become my next primary MMO. I will of course enjoy improvements but it will not be the reason I stay and pay.
Del Cabon A US Army ('Just Cause') Vet and MMORPG Native formerly of Trinsic, Norath and Dereth. Currently playing LOTRO.
All of 3D rendered graphics is copious amounts of fakery. Therefore, any effort at getting real about graphics is doomed to failure.
Really, though, you propose to evaluate a game's graphics by watching a video far before launch? And you're comparing a video of one game intended to show game mechanics to a video of another game intended to show off pretty graphics? And it somehow surprises you that the latter video looks prettier than the former?
well in regards to the OP.... Humm Old EQ players fussing about graphics... there is an oxymoron in there.. or maybe just a bunch of morons... either way....
It has been proven time and again that gameplay matters much more than graphical details. Players who are very focused on graphics quality typically don't care for the kind of game Pantheon will be anyway, so trying to meet those players standards would be targeting the wrong demographic; and fail in pleasing both. Not that gameplay so far is impressive in any way, it needs alot of work to reach a acceptable standard. I am not a fan of Unity in the way that it locks the developer into a limited way of working, especially on the code design. Cry and unreal are more optimized for graphics, but there is nothing that hinders as good graphics in Unity, it may just be less efficient or require more optimization work.
I'm going to answer this question because the underlying cause that everyone is over looking: People have to physically draw the graphics you see in video games... It's not the tech, it's not the code, it's the artists. It's not dated, it's poorly drawn.
I don't know why anybody bothers to post anything remotely critical here. The Pantheon backers are like cultists lol
I'm guessing that many think it will take them back to 1999 EQ and the feelings it brought, and I hate to say it but those days are gone.
Those days here right now in Project 1999 and have enjoyed every minute of it for years.
I agree but I think he is talking about a commercially viable product, in which case, I have to agree with him unfortunately. It is just not sustainable.
about the graphics part. For me graphics consist of 3 parts:
-The technical side. Textures, dynamic lightning, drawing distance, pop in etc. The art side. 'Realistic' like EQ2, heavily stylised like WoW, or something in between. -The animation side. How does everything move, is it organic, is it alive?
I think Pantheon has the first one, it is sound on a technical level. The art side if things is just preference as long as it is consistent within its own universe (makes sense). But the game loses many points on the animation front. It looks stiff and dull. Can it be fixed? Yes. Will they? I don't know.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
It has been proven time and again that gameplay matters much more than graphical details. Players who are very focused on graphics quality typically don't care for the kind of game Pantheon will be anyway, so trying to meet those players standards would be targeting the wrong demographic; and fail in pleasing both. Not that gameplay so far is impressive in any way, it needs alot of work to reach a acceptable standard. I am not a fan of Unity in the way that it locks the developer into a limited way of working, especially on the code design. Cry and unreal are more optimized for graphics, but there is nothing that hinders as good graphics in Unity, it may just be less efficient or require more optimization work.
Proven? That's a rather hard to qualify statement. Especially in terms of RPGS. Which historically struggled on the actual gameplay quality front. Due to a broader scope which art is a big part of. It's not like we're talking about the next Mario or Minecraft here, that's pure gameplay.
RPGs in a lot of ways are as much about atmosphere as they are about gameplay. Look at factors like exploration, that's almost 100% visual, take a percentage or so away for discovery (treasure, intrigue), if an RPG doesn't have it, it feels lesser. (at least today)... Exploration is kinda worthless if the game doesn't deliver on the visual front. Even that discovery is highly improved with visuals. A cool looking weapon is better than a wooden sword. A well drawn boss is better than a blob of colors.
Visuals are extremely important in the RPG format.
If this game looked like Gorgon I can bet many saying it looks fine wouldn't be. I know I wouldn't be.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It has been proven time and again that gameplay matters much more than graphical details. Players who are very focused on graphics quality typically don't care for the kind of game Pantheon will be anyway, so trying to meet those players standards would be targeting the wrong demographic; and fail in pleasing both. Not that gameplay so far is impressive in any way, it needs alot of work to reach a acceptable standard. I am not a fan of Unity in the way that it locks the developer into a limited way of working, especially on the code design. Cry and unreal are more optimized for graphics, but there is nothing that hinders as good graphics in Unity, it may just be less efficient or require more optimization work.
Proven? That's a rather hard to qualify statement. Especially in terms of RPGS. Which historically struggled on the actual gameplay quality front. Due to a broader scope which art is a big part of. It's not like we're talking about the next Mario or Minecraft here, that's pure gameplay.
RPGs in a lot of ways are as much about atmosphere as they are about gameplay. Look at factors like exploration, that's almost 100% visual, take a percentage or so away for discovery (treasure, intrigue), if an RPG doesn't have it, it feels lesser. (at least today)... Exploration is kinda worthless if the game doesn't deliver on the visual front. Even that discovery is highly improved with visuals. A cool looking weapon is better than a wooden sword. A well drawn boss is better than a blob of colors.
Visuals are extremely important in the RPG format.
If this game looked like Gorgon I can bet many saying it looks fine wouldn't be. I know I wouldn't be.
As one of the players (and I am not alone) who play games that have good gameplay first and how they look second - It is proven.. fact.. whatever you call it, I am not going that pointless argumentation war. I am not saying a game should not have visual quality, I am saying if a game has poor gameplay no amount of visually pleasentry will make the type of player I am play such a game. For a mmorpg like Pantheon, as long as they reach a decent standard, spending the time on creating great gameplay is a far better use of resources than putting it into advanced visuals to compete with games like Barbie Doll online, GW2, or even console like games and other limited/controlled type of games that are much more suited for stunning visuals.
I don't know why anybody bothers to post anything remotely critical here. The Pantheon backers are like cultists lol
I'm guessing that many think it will take them back to 1999 EQ and the feelings it brought, and I hate to say it but those days are gone.
Those days here right now in Project 1999 and have enjoyed every minute of it for years.
I agree but I think he is talking about a commercially viable product, in which case, I have to agree with him unfortunately. It is just not sustainable.
about the graphics part. For me graphics consist of 3 parts:
-The technical side. Textures, dynamic lightning, drawing distance, pop in etc. The art side. 'Realistic' like EQ2, heavily stylised like WoW, or something in between. -The animation side. How does everything move, is it organic, is it alive?
I think Pantheon has the first one, it is sound on a technical level. The art side if things is just preference as long as it is consistent within its own universe (makes sense). But the game loses many points on the animation front. It looks stiff and dull. Can it be fixed? Yes. Will they? I don't know.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Well explained. As they've told us in the recent stream, they've only just begun to work on the animations side of things. They hired animators a matter of weeks ago, and are actually still hiring artists.
Never cared mcuh about graphics. What's stunning to me is how beautiful I felt teh graphics in Wurm Online were in 2012 and that was on poor settings. And yet people complain hte graphics were terrible. Admittedly, they were I guess. The avatars weren't even animated when I started. They were probably circa 2002 by amateurs? I don't care abour graphics anyway, I loved it for its harshness/survival and sandbox nature. At that time, there was almost nothing like it out there. There were a lot of MMORPGs with better graphics, but they didn't have the meat.
For me, ironically, no hand holding is a feature. It's possibly one of the easiest things for a game maker to do, but few do because it's unpopular. That's one of the things separates Wurm Online from the rest right now. Still, I imagine eventually it'll keep adding things until it too is a cakewalk. In some ways it already is.
At the end of the day the question is still why does AoC look amazing and Pantheon look like crap.
Pantheon really looks sub par graphically speaking. And where I agree the game has shown improvements as the development has progressed, the animations still look like total crap, (even the monk was less then impressive) and the character models remind me of the "new" DAoC models, and that is not impressive at all. I am sure that the world, the players, and the animations will all see improvements as the game progresses. But the truth is you can put all the lipstick on a pig you want. I do not know if I have faith that the Pantheon team has the ability to make the game look much better then it looks right now.
AoC , that video, I agree is not in game footage, but there are several streams that look like them actually playing a game. Now I see a lot of people discounting all videos as fake or staged or what not, Unless you happen to work for the company or you have some inside knowledge that contradicts the developers or you can prove that is NOT game footage, then your opinion on the validity of the them really counts for less then jack shit. I am going to take the word of the game developers over the internet fanboy 10 out of 10 times. I guess that kinda extends to your opinion on where they are in the development cycle. From what I have seen the game as it stands now looks visually far superior to Pantheon on every level. And if Pantheon has shown us anything, its that a game can look better as development progresses.
As for game play over visuals, yes just about always, hell I still play EQ and EQ2 as my primary games and one of them lacks both visuals and game play. But at this point nothing Pantheon has shown is amazing, it not bad per say.. just the same old stuff from EQ again and they do talk a good talk for things to come, but AoC also talks a good talk. But this wasn't a ...what game has a better feature list, it was a question as to why Pantheon looks old when compared to AoC.
The simple answer may be that VR may lack the technical skill or artistic skill to make a game that is as visually appealing as AoC is showing right now.
Game play first IMO. Also if you dont get this game will not have triple A graphics and animations you may need to adjust your thinking. Also we are still in pre-pre-alpha. Pre-alpha starts soon. So its not even the time to judge. Just my humble two cents.
It has been proven time and again that gameplay matters much more than graphical details. Players who are very focused on graphics quality typically don't care for the kind of game Pantheon will be anyway,
Hmmm, I think your first statement is false but your second statement is very true. Also pretty much what I said, the person who is to play Pantheon knows what it is, knows that it will probably have graphical limitations in certain areas but it's the other things that will attract them.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Very clear many who post on this thread do not read the responses.
Confirmed: The game is still in early development. Confirmed: Graphics and lighting are still in development. Confirmed: Current animations are place holder and new artists being hired to work on new animations (which commonly replace place holder work while other components of the game are worked on). Fact: Mmorpgs scaled games have restrictions on graphic details not shared by smaller scale games and sacrifices must be made at least on some levels.
So for those not willing to learn the current state of the game and how general game development works: Please stop wasting thread space with your uneducated opinions. It is still too early to judge how this game will look at release.
So there, warning provided but I also realize many of you will lack the self control to absorb this and will snap response your unfiltered, social media addicted opinions outside of any governed reason or fact.
Very clear many who post on this thread do not read the responses.
Confirmed: The game is still in early development. Confirmed: Graphics and lighting are still in development. Confirmed: Current animations are place holder and new artists being hired to work on new animations (which commonly replace place holder work while other components of the game are worked on). Fact: Mmorpgs scaled games have restrictions on graphic details not shared by smaller scale games and sacrifices must be made at least on some levels.
So for those not willing to learn the current state of the game and how general game development works: Please stop wasting thread space with your uneducated opinions. It is still too early to judge how this game will look at release.
So there, warning provided but I also realize many of you will lack the self control to absorb this and will snap response your unfiltered, social media addicted opinions outside of any governed reason or fact.
Of course people are going to continue.. This is a forum.... Besides most of the discussion has shifted toward the importance or lack of importance of GFX. Meaning any "facts" go out the window, as that's 100% opinion.
One thing though.. that last "fact" is a few years past it's prime.... MMO's can have excellent graphics in this day and age.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Very clear many who post on this thread do not read the responses.
Confirmed: The game is still in early development. Confirmed: Graphics and lighting are still in development. Confirmed: Current animations are place holder and new artists being hired to work on new animations (which commonly replace place holder work while other components of the game are worked on). Fact: Mmorpgs scaled games have restrictions on graphic details not shared by smaller scale games and sacrifices must be made at least on some levels.
So for those not willing to learn the current state of the game and how general game development works: Please stop wasting thread space with your uneducated opinions. It is still too early to judge how this game will look at release.
So there, warning provided but I also realize many of you will lack the self control to absorb this and will snap response your unfiltered, social media addicted opinions outside of any governed reason or fact.
Of course people are going to continue.. This is a forum.... Besides most of the discussion has shifted toward the importance or lack of importance of GFX. Meaning any "facts" go out the window, as that's 100% opinion.
One thing though.. that last "fact" is a few years past it's prime.... MMO's can have excellent graphics in this day and age.
"Excellent"?
Compared to a modern FPS? No.
I did not place a limit on how good a mmorpg or specifically Pantheon can look . This is your assumption. The first 3 letters of the word should let you know how one looks when they make assumptions.
The fact I revealed is true. No matter how good the tech is behind the game ... the larger scale you make a game the more restraint the developer must take in order to maintain performance. This will impact it's overall look. It may go from incredible to merely amazing or great to merely good ... but in order to have 50 or 100 or 1000 players on a screen at a time, hard coded restraints must be in place.
I ask you 2 questions:
1. Have you seen a release candidate video of Pantheon even though one doesn't exist which proves how good or poor this game will look? 2. Do you have the development experience to judge what this team can do with the budget and team size they will be working with?
Lastly, If what I said does not impact you then don't respond for those I directed it at (I used the word "many" and not "most" or "all". I'm not here to teach English, I'm merely using it to communicate). A thread does not "shift" topic. It is the entirety of the thread on point to the OP ... otherwise it is trolling off topic as per the forum rules. The fact I have to point this out to a person who feels they must remind me this is a forum is odd to say the least.
I did not place a limit on how good a mmorpg or specifically Pantheon can look . This is your assumption. The first 3 letters of the word should let you know how one looks when they make assumptions.
The fact I revealed is true. No matter how good the tech is behind the game ... the larger scale you make a game the more restraint the developer must take in order to maintain performance. This will impact it's overall look. It may go from incredible to merely amazing or great to merely good ... but in order to have 50 or 100 or 1000 players on a screen at a time, hard coded restraints must be in place.
I ask you 2 questions:
1. Have you seen a release candidate video of Pantheon even though one doesn't exist which proves how good or poor this game will look? 2. Do you have the development experience to judge what this team can do with the budget and team size they will be working with?
Lastly, If what I said does not impact you then don't respond for those I directed it at (I used the word "many" and not "most" or "all". I'm not here to teach English, I'm merely using it to communicate). A thread does not "shift" topic. It is the entirety of the thread on point to the OP ... otherwise it is trolling off topic as per the forum rules. The fact I have to point this out to a person who feels they must remind me this is a forum is odd to say the least.
Excellent compared to where we were with them years ago...
Secondly take it down a notch, I was just saying people went from disparaging Pantheons looks to saying whether graphics are important to them or not (hence saying it shifted). Some good posts came with that so I have no problem reading/responding to them YMMV.
As you might notice in my first post. I wasn't keen on the idea of the original intent of the OP either. It wasn't until it shifted to the importance of gfx that I myself felt it worthy to discuss. Sometimes good debate comes from not so great topics.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
As a player of EQ for many years, I can categorically say that if you give two pennies(particularly the faked-up pretty pictures in the Ashes footage) about graphics, you aren't the target demo for Pantheon and do not understand the appeal of the type of game they are making. That style of game lives and dies on the game mechanics, the roles of the players, and the ability of a group to effectively control an experience camp and raids to get the most out of the assorted mechanics that are available and that are then thrown at them. Don't get that right... YOU DO NOT HAVE A GAME. You have Pretty Pictures.
Now.. Aradune and his band of merry men(and a woman), don't exactly burn the house down in their videos. Take what they do there, and double the speed, increase the density.. with a good monk chain dropping mobs so tight, you'll be begging for mercy... and you'll start getting to where they'll be. In a game like EQ or Pantheon, good players take what they do and turn it into an assembly line of carnage until you're mowing the lawn for a good portion of the zone(your camp). How effective you are at it, is largely a function of gear and ability, the former of which becomes very critical and creates the *want* of certain rare items to help the churn.
But there is a critical key to this. Its a slower(i.e. not twitchy) cooperative effort of people actually playing their roles properly to get mobs down effectively. And failure to properly sing along with mitch carries penalties that will shatter the ego and will of sensitive snowflakes. Most will quit(if they even bother to try), those that stay will be better for it.
The other piece of magic they somehow need to replicate is hopefully static servers. At least to the point you can actually recognize names and players again. This whole.. grouping with randoms on completely different servers in games is such garbage because it makes the game so impersonal. So you actually get to know people on your server because you constantly play with or around them. That, in and of itself, was one of the great things about old EQ.
At the end of the day the question is still why does AoC look amazing and Pantheon look like crap.
Pantheon really looks sub par graphically speaking. And where I agree the game has shown improvements as the development has progressed, the animations still look like total crap, (even the monk was less then impressive) and the character models remind me of the "new" DAoC models, and that is not impressive at all. I am sure that the world, the players, and the animations will all see improvements as the game progresses. But the truth is you can put all the lipstick on a pig you want. I do not know if I have faith that the Pantheon team has the ability to make the game look much better then it looks right now.
AoC , that video, I agree is not in game footage, but there are several streams that look like them actually playing a game. Now I see a lot of people discounting all videos as fake or staged or what not, Unless you happen to work for the company or you have some inside knowledge that contradicts the developers or you can prove that is NOT game footage, then your opinion on the validity of the them really counts for less then jack shit. I am going to take the word of the game developers over the internet fanboy 10 out of 10 times. I guess that kinda extends to your opinion on where they are in the development cycle. From what I have seen the game as it stands now looks visually far superior to Pantheon on every level. And if Pantheon has shown us anything, its that a game can look better as development progresses.
As for game play over visuals, yes just about always, hell I still play EQ and EQ2 as my primary games and one of them lacks both visuals and game play. But at this point nothing Pantheon has shown is amazing, it not bad per say.. just the same old stuff from EQ again and they do talk a good talk for things to come, but AoC also talks a good talk. But this wasn't a ...what game has a better feature list, it was a question as to why Pantheon looks old when compared to AoC.
The simple answer may be that VR may lack the technical skill or artistic skill to make a game that is as visually appealing as AoC is showing right now.
Very easy answer to your first question confirmed by the devs, Pantheon is developing the gameplay, game mechanics and world design/building first, and letting the graphical improvements, such as detailed environments, textures, character models and animations to the end of development, because those aspects of the game don't affect the overall end result only the visual aspects, so doing them when they have a fully functioning game is, to them, the best option.
I think the game looks good, AoC looks better but it's mainly due to heavy lighting effects and the use of artwork bought from the UE4.
How some of you think this looks bad in an MMO is beyond me. 123456789101112
Comments
If Pantheon delivers on its game play objectives and offers even the same graphics I have already seen in their preview videos, It could very well become my next primary MMO. I will of course enjoy improvements but it will not be the reason I stay and pay.
Del Cabon
A US Army ('Just Cause') Vet and MMORPG Native formerly of Trinsic, Norath and Dereth. Currently playing LOTRO.
Really, though, you propose to evaluate a game's graphics by watching a video far before launch? And you're comparing a video of one game intended to show game mechanics to a video of another game intended to show off pretty graphics? And it somehow surprises you that the latter video looks prettier than the former?
I am not a fan of Unity in the way that it locks the developer into a limited way of working, especially on the code design. Cry and unreal are more optimized for graphics, but there is nothing that hinders as good graphics in Unity, it may just be less efficient or require more optimization work.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
about the graphics part. For me graphics consist of 3 parts:
-The technical side. Textures, dynamic lightning, drawing distance, pop in etc.
The art side. 'Realistic' like EQ2, heavily stylised like WoW, or something in between.
-The animation side. How does everything move, is it organic, is it alive?
I think Pantheon has the first one, it is sound on a technical level. The art side if things is just preference as long as it is consistent within its own universe (makes sense). But the game loses many points on the animation front. It looks stiff and dull. Can it be fixed? Yes. Will they? I don't know.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
RPGs in a lot of ways are as much about atmosphere as they are about gameplay. Look at factors like exploration, that's almost 100% visual, take a percentage or so away for discovery (treasure, intrigue), if an RPG doesn't have it, it feels lesser. (at least today)... Exploration is kinda worthless if the game doesn't deliver on the visual front. Even that discovery is highly improved with visuals. A cool looking weapon is better than a wooden sword. A well drawn boss is better than a blob of colors.
Visuals are extremely important in the RPG format.
If this game looked like Gorgon I can bet many saying it looks fine wouldn't be. I know I wouldn't be.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I am not saying a game should not have visual quality, I am saying if a game has poor gameplay no amount of visually pleasentry will make the type of player I am play such a game.
For a mmorpg like Pantheon, as long as they reach a decent standard, spending the time on creating great gameplay is a far better use of resources than putting it into advanced visuals to compete with games like Barbie Doll online, GW2, or even console like games and other limited/controlled type of games that are much more suited for stunning visuals.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
For me, ironically, no hand holding is a feature. It's possibly one of the easiest things for a game maker to do, but few do because it's unpopular. That's one of the things separates Wurm Online from the rest right now. Still, I imagine eventually it'll keep adding things until it too is a cakewalk. In some ways it already is.
It's hte easiest thing to lose too
But ya graphics??? Ho Hum. Time to troll with music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAhF9_iB2qs
Pantheon really looks sub par graphically speaking. And where I agree the game has shown improvements as the development has progressed, the animations still look like total crap, (even the monk was less then impressive) and the character models remind me of the "new" DAoC models, and that is not impressive at all. I am sure that the world, the players, and the animations will all see improvements as the game progresses. But the truth is you can put all the lipstick on a pig you want. I do not know if I have faith that the Pantheon team has the ability to make the game look much better then it looks right now.
AoC , that video, I agree is not in game footage, but there are several streams that look like them actually playing a game. Now I see a lot of people discounting all videos as fake or staged or what not, Unless you happen to work for the company or you have some inside knowledge that contradicts the developers or you can prove that is NOT game footage, then your opinion on the validity of the them really counts for less then jack shit. I am going to take the word of the game developers over the internet fanboy 10 out of 10 times. I guess that kinda extends to your opinion on where they are in the development cycle. From what I have seen the game as it stands now looks visually far superior to Pantheon on every level. And if Pantheon has shown us anything, its that a game can look better as development progresses.
As for game play over visuals, yes just about always, hell I still play EQ and EQ2 as my primary games and one of them lacks both visuals and game play. But at this point nothing Pantheon has shown is amazing, it not bad per say.. just the same old stuff from EQ again and they do talk a good talk for things to come, but AoC also talks a good talk. But this wasn't a ...what game has a better feature list, it was a question as to why Pantheon looks old when compared to AoC.
The simple answer may be that VR may lack the technical skill or artistic skill to make a game that is as visually appealing as AoC is showing right now.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Confirmed: The game is still in early development.
Confirmed: Graphics and lighting are still in development.
Confirmed: Current animations are place holder and new artists being hired to work on new animations (which commonly replace place holder work while other components of the game are worked on).
Fact: Mmorpgs scaled games have restrictions on graphic details not shared by smaller scale games and sacrifices must be made at least on some levels.
So for those not willing to learn the current state of the game and how general game development works: Please stop wasting thread space with your uneducated opinions. It is still too early to judge how this game will look at release.
So there, warning provided but I also realize many of you will lack the self control to absorb this and will snap response your unfiltered, social media addicted opinions outside of any governed reason or fact.
You stay sassy!
One thing though.. that last "fact" is a few years past it's prime.... MMO's can have excellent graphics in this day and age.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Compared to a modern FPS? No.
I did not place a limit on how good a mmorpg or specifically Pantheon can look . This is your assumption. The first 3 letters of the word should let you know how one looks when they make assumptions.
The fact I revealed is true. No matter how good the tech is behind the game ... the larger scale you make a game the more restraint the developer must take in order to maintain performance. This will impact it's overall look. It may go from incredible to merely amazing or great to merely good ... but in order to have 50 or 100 or 1000 players on a screen at a time, hard coded restraints must be in place.
I ask you 2 questions:
1. Have you seen a release candidate video of Pantheon even though one doesn't exist which proves how good or poor this game will look?
2. Do you have the development experience to judge what this team can do with the budget and team size they will be working with?
Lastly, If what I said does not impact you then don't respond for those I directed it at (I used the word "many" and not "most" or "all". I'm not here to teach English, I'm merely using it to communicate). A thread does not "shift" topic. It is the entirety of the thread on point to the OP ... otherwise it is trolling off topic as per the forum rules. The fact I have to point this out to a person who feels they must remind me this is a forum is odd to say the least.
You stay sassy!
Secondly take it down a notch, I was just saying people went from disparaging Pantheons looks to saying whether graphics are important to them or not (hence saying it shifted). Some good posts came with that so I have no problem reading/responding to them YMMV.
As you might notice in my first post. I wasn't keen on the idea of the original intent of the OP either. It wasn't until it shifted to the importance of gfx that I myself felt it worthy to discuss. Sometimes good debate comes from not so great topics.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Exactly, and this is the problem.
Now.. Aradune and his band of merry men(and a woman), don't exactly burn the house down in their videos. Take what they do there, and double the speed, increase the density.. with a good monk chain dropping mobs so tight, you'll be begging for mercy... and you'll start getting to where they'll be. In a game like EQ or Pantheon, good players take what they do and turn it into an assembly line of carnage until you're mowing the lawn for a good portion of the zone(your camp). How effective you are at it, is largely a function of gear and ability, the former of which becomes very critical and creates the *want* of certain rare items to help the churn.
But there is a critical key to this. Its a slower(i.e. not twitchy) cooperative effort of people actually playing their roles properly to get mobs down effectively. And failure to properly sing along with mitch carries penalties that will shatter the ego and will of sensitive snowflakes. Most will quit(if they even bother to try), those that stay will be better for it.
The other piece of magic they somehow need to replicate is hopefully static servers. At least to the point you can actually recognize names and players again. This whole.. grouping with randoms on completely different servers in games is such garbage because it makes the game so impersonal. So you actually get to know people on your server because you constantly play with or around them. That, in and of itself, was one of the great things about old EQ.
I think the game looks good, AoC looks better but it's mainly due to heavy lighting effects and the use of artwork bought from the UE4.
How some of you think this looks bad in an MMO is beyond me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12