Vanguard VS Dark Age of Camelot

theanimedude · February 2007

Ok, while I am not usually one to do this... I feel the need.

People are ranting and raving, saying how amazing Vanguard looks... but my question is this: Why does it matter how amazing the engine is when you can't play it on high enough settings to see it all? This is just like the way EQ2 has it. The game can look amazing, if you have a $5000 PC, but for the average gamer it looks like crap.

I looked up player screens of Vanguard (not those rendered screens they have on the site, and please tell me, does it look any better than DAoC? (A 5 year old game, I might add)

I will give Vanguard that it has bump mapping, and it's UI buttons are cleaner, but other than that, it's not all that amazing.

Vanguard
-----

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8550/screenshot00000ky6.jpg
http://www.pub.goha.ru/news/mmorpg/vanguard/scr/vsoh86.jpg
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/galleries/vanguard_sept27/07.jpg
http://www.vanguardonline.ru/images/photo/1/45.JPG
http://www.vanguardonline.ru/images/photo/1/39.JPG

Dark Age of Camelot
-----

http://myst.z.free.fr/picz/screens_daoc/big_glast_11.jpg
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/5980/drhorse0195ie.jpg
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/7940/drhorse0216ik.jpg
http://www.ic-games.co.uk/images/screenshots/3454/screenshots/3.jpg http://www.gucomics.com/images/screenshots/vanguard/gu_11.jpg http://www.pub.goha.ru/news/mmorpg/vanguard/scr/vsoh86.jpg

What do you guys think? Do you think games really look all that "amazing" these days? or does the advanced gameplay of our "first gen MMOs" still beat the new comers?

Unknown · February 2007

Better compare DAOC with these Vanguard pictures:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i224/stylee99/ScreenShot_00002big.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i224/stylee99/ScreenShot_00027.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i224/stylee99/ScreenShot_00026.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i224/stylee99/ScreenShot_00025.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i224/stylee99/ScreenShot_00023.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i224/stylee99/ScreenShot_00022.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i224/stylee99/ScreenShot_00015.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i224/stylee99/ScreenShot_00009.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i224/stylee99/ScreenShot_00005.jpg

KnivesOnly · February 2007

I like the rocks on this game:

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4223/vgclient200610211741048pk7.jpg

Tuutob · February 2007

At first sight, I was going to reply to this thread by pointing out that a Vanguard vs. DAoC comparison would be like comparing a typewriter to a computer.

Then I saw Vanguard's graphics.

Its true it does have stunning graphics, but only God computers can run it on those settings. The OP gave some real Vanguard shots, and holy crap, DAoC looks better than them on his rig!

It's the same thing that happened with EQ2...

Gameloading · February 2007

I don't really find Vanguards graphics to be THAT impressive.

KnivesOnly · February 2007

Originally posted by Gameloading

I don't really find Vanguards graphics to be THAT impressive.

Nore do i : They're only Unreal 2.5, though look bad cause of the blandness.

Keebs1984 · February 2007

Ok...I am putting my flame shield on...

WoW's BC graphics look way better in my opinion. Flame on fanboys...

*ducks*

Shoal · February 2007

Ya, V:SoH graphics in same dinghy with EQ2. Engine for computers that will be to come. *Laughs*.

Two years later, there is still NO computer on the planet that can run EQ2 at max settings and have it not be a slide-show.

Same with V:SoH. So, why do they do it? Who knows.

Quite frankly, I *like* the WoW graphics. Fast, colorful, varied, well shaded and mapped. Different areas of the world in WoW are full of life and vibrant and DO NOT LAG. And don't forget, they are supposed to be based on the Warcraft world, not the world of classic 'real' fantasy.

As for DAoC, I liked its graphics as well. And at the settings that make EQ2 (and V:SoH) playable, DAoC graphics (Post SI) are way, way better than EQ2 or V:SoH. IMO.

By the way, all those 'long vistas' in V:SoH... They are all Empty Space. These designers had no clue what 'Scenic Compression' was all about. And 'No Zones'??? Oh, but we have 'Chunks'. Ya, you can see through them, but they will stop you dead in your tracks while they load. Kinda like Zones, heh?

V:SoH == PoS

wrongfeifong · February 2007

Vanguard without a doubt have great graphic compare to what currently on the US market, but if you compare with Asia market, Vanguard lost its edge.

Seriously, the upcoming MMORPG Sword of New world a.k.a Granados espados, look twice, no three time better, smoother. And i could play it on a crappy PC and still run it fine.

The screenshot i saw are not amazing at all, the graphic is comparable to the game "Perfect World" and if you ever have a chance to play it, you would be AMAZAED by how great the graphic that game have, even through if you look closely this game still have some place not as smooth but already good look enough. btw this could be play on a p3 800 =.=

http://www.w2i.com.cn/jietu/images/2006-11-02%2016-01-41.jpg

http://www.w2i.com.cn/news/101105/101105103/images/2007-02-01/1170308992306.jpg

http://www.w2i.com.cn/news/101105/101105103/images/2007-02-01/1170308993232.jpg

lomiller · February 2007

Originally posted by Shoal
Ya, V:SoH graphics in same dinghy with EQ2. Engine for computers that will be to come. *Laughs*.
Two years later, there is still NO computer on the planet that can run EQ2 at max settings and have it not be a slide-show.
Same with V:SoH.

Not even remotely true. With everything but shadows cranked up EQ2 will run just fine on a sub $1000 system if you set it up properly. (2GB RAM, 512MB nVidia 7600 or better video card, AMD 3600+ or better processor or any Intel Core2 processor) From the reports Ive heard Vanguard will run at balanced settings on a similar system.

The big key for both is getting enough memory, at least 2GB and at least 512MB video memory if you want to run the highest quality textures. After that EQ2 is mostly processor dependant, while Vanguard is a little harder on the video card.

Copeland · February 2007

Originally posted by Shoal
Ya, V:SoH graphics in same dinghy with EQ2. Engine for computers that will be to come. *Laughs*.
Two years later, there is still NO computer on the planet that can run EQ2 at max settings and have it not be a slide-show.
Same with V:SoH. So, why do they do it? Who knows.
Quite frankly, I *like* the WoW graphics. Fast, colorful, varied, well shaded and mapped. Different areas of the world in WoW are full of life and vibrant and DO NOT LAG. And don't forget, they are supposed to be based on the Warcraft world, not the world of classic 'real' fantasy.
As for DAoC, I liked its graphics as well. And at the settings that make EQ2 (and V:SoH) playable, DAoC graphics (Post SI) are way, way better than EQ2 or V:SoH. IMO.
By the way, all those 'long vistas' in V:SoH... They are all Empty Space. These designers had no clue what 'Scenic Compression' was all about. And 'No Zones'??? Oh, but we have 'Chunks'. Ya, you can see through them, but they will stop you dead in your tracks while they load. Kinda like Zones, heh?
V:SoH == PoS

Well.. The graphics in Vanguard are amazing as are EQ2 with mid range machines. A mid range machine today is dual core, 2 gig of ram and a 7900 or better video card and they can easily handle the highest settings. I'm not sure what you're talking about with the chunks. I barely notice a stutter when i go through one. Sounds like you have a weak pc to me.

Ozriok · February 2007

So, why do they do it? Who knows.

To keep up with Windows.

http://www.windows-sucks.com/content/whatsbad.shtml

It's a long read, but if you've ever been curious as to why so many IT guys hate Windows There ya go.

Sample from the article:

Why is it that Microsoft's products keep mushrooming in size with each new release always requiring significantly more disk space and more processing power than the last time? They might claim it's because of all the new features they add each time, but that's only half the story. The new features and the increased processing requirements are designed to fuel the process of perpetual upgrades. This is Microsoft's way of rubbing Intel's back so that Intel will give Microsoft preferential treatment when it comes out with new chip specs. It's also Microsoft's way of convincing consumers that their newer product versions are better because they are so much bigger. Their new features are often superfluous but users must still deal with the overhead required by the features even though most will never use the features.

CNN has a good article which explains why bloat is such a bad thing. Unneeded features make products more cumbersome to use and the addition of new features often sacrifices the performance (and sometimes the integrity) of older features. Why not stick with an older version of the product then? Two reasons: (1) you only get customer support if you stay current, and (2) if you need to work with other people using the same program older versions are often incompatible with newer versions, so if anybody is using the newest version, then everybody must upgrade.
"The Bloatware Debate" is a technical discussion of how two separate people dissected one particular Microsoft program and found out, to their shock, that it was over 2,000% larger than it should have Been. It would appear from this discussion that the cumbersome size of Microsoft programs is due not only to the continually growing clutter of useless features but it is also due to careless programming (perhaps to an even larger degree).

Rodzilla · February 2007

I played the beta and my 3.4 pent, 1 gig ram, nvidia 7900 ran it decent on any setting. Most of the grafics are pretty good but not the best ive seen on an mmo. I would have liked to see more enhanced looking weapons and armor similer to L2 maybe. I would have bought the game if it had an RvR based end game but who know what they will add in the next year or so.

M1sf1t · February 2007

Characters and animations in VG suck arse. Let's do a comparison of VG's animations vs EQ1, DAOC, E2, and WoW. In all three VG loses big time. The landscape looks nice but the characters and animations are just a tid bit better then EQ1's characters.

Aeronis · February 2007

You can spend $500-$1000 on components that will run Vanguard well.

I'm running well on balanced with an AMD 3000+, Radeon X800, and 2 gigs of RAM.

That's not a "godly PC", but actually underpowered by today's gaming standards.

The only people who think that is an unreasonable standard for a brand new game is obviously using an old clunker of a PC that isn't fit run anything more advanced than WoW or DAoC.

CleffyII · February 2007

Mid-range is about $1000; so a midrange computer bought today would be able to run Vanguard on its High Settings comfortably. However, you have to remember the average person usually only buys a PC every 3-5 years, and a mid-range PC 3-5 years ago is early p4/Socket A. Do you think the average person will dish out $1000/year to play some games? They already will have the power needed to use the PC for its general tasks with a much older system, MS Word and Internet Explorer. With that much money to throw around, they might as well have bought the PS3, XBox 360, and the Wii. Its poor marketing to make your mmo have large system requirements, you limit your potential audience.

Now take Granado Espada for example. Far better looking graphics, innovative gameplay, and works well on a midrange PC 3-5 years old. This is one of the real reasons why WoW is so popular, and one of the reasons why Granado Espada will be as popular.

Edit- On graphics department between the 2 games. Vanguard has alot more, and alot bigger texture maps. Unfortunetly, they are used poorly. Many models have seams, overbumping, and lack good detailing. The textures are pretty generic and it looks like the whole game was made off 60 textures. The actual texture mapping lacks breaks in the texture from belts, cuts, and overlap. This is why I think DAOC has better art direction which ultimately makes the graphics look better at lower settings.

rungard · February 2007

too many developers are under the impression that more polygons="advanced" graphics.

they totally forget or disregard functionality like animations, cant show physical damage on avatars or monsters, are not complex enough to allow monster conning by the graphics alone, and cant show your avatar growing in power.

if you want to say more polygons is advanced , fine.

its not "better" by any means. Better requires the graphics to have things the ui has to emulate now.

LittleBlue · February 2007

Both game suck

!

Tithrielle · February 2007

Originally posted by theanimedude

I looked up player screens of Vanguard (not those rendered screens they have on the site, and please tell me, does it look any better than DAoC? (A 5 year old game, I might add)

Um... yes it does look better than DAOC, exponentially so. Try actually playing the game instead of basing your opinion off screenshots. And you don't need to spend $5000 on a machine to get the graphics looking good in VG.

JMoney95 · February 2007

Those SS's must have been taken by either someone with an absolutely shitastic comp or one thats horribly configured. Or someone who feels they need to play at 85fps.

My roommates comp is a 1.8ghz (yes, that bad) with 1gb of ram and a 9600XT 256mb vid card, and his looks way better than those SS's while still playable (30-35fps). That's like $300 of gear.

My comp is 3.4ghz, 2gb of ram, and 2x7800GTX's in SLI (SLI not supported by Vanguard yet though bleh) and I can play with most near high at about 50-60fps outside of town, inside of town drops in the 30s.

A patch just before release increased performance alot, many people still probably thinking its the same way if they havent tried it since. Not optimized yet by any means, but was quite a large increase for many.

And to add, I'm not saying Vanguards graphics are the most beautiful thing on earth, but really, for anyone with a comp that isnt complete trash Vanguards do look pretty good with playable settings. Towns are decent hit, but outside is fine. And what real gamer is still sporting garbage computers?

wjrasmussen · February 2007

I was disappointed with the character creation, but that was back during beta last summer/fall. CoH spoiled me for options on the looks but then again they were a superhero game. I wish vangaurd luck.

Originally posted by M1sf1t

Characters and animations in VG suck arse. Let's do a comparison of VG's animations vs EQ1, DAOC, E2, and WoW. In all three VG loses big time. The landscape looks nice but the characters and animations are just a tid bit better then EQ1's characters.

Karandor · February 2007

People bitch about animations in VG but I'm perfectly happy with them. My HE cleric seems to be pretty good for animations. I haven't played much of other classes and races though so it may be hit and miss. Druids have cool spell animations IMO.

boblibob · February 2007

My rig at current day prices would probably cost somewhere in the region of $1000, and ive had it for almost exactly 1 year (it cost double that when i got)

Now $1000 is a pretty decent price for a new pc, and i played VG during beta at high specs and pulled a stable30-45 fps with minimal hitching.

specs

AMD 64X2 4400+

ATI X1900XTX

2GIG OCZ RAM

ASUS AX8 v2.0 Motherboard

see, not all that amazing by todays standards as ati have only released the x1950 series in the past YEAR.

so quit bitching and whining. you have OLD PC'S.

Seriously, i bet your pc is BEIGE

swede2 · February 2007

Originally posted by theanimedude

Ok, while I am not usually one to do this... I feel the need.
People are ranting and raving, saying how amazing Vanguard looks... but my question is this: Why does it matter how amazing the engine is when you can't play it on high enough settings to see it all? This is just like the way EQ2 has it. The game can look amazing, if you have a $5000 PC, but for the average gamer it looks like crap.
I looked up player screens of Vanguard (not those rendered screens they have on the site, and please tell me, does it look any better than DAoC? (A 5 year old game, I might add)
I will give Vanguard that it has bump mapping, and it's UI buttons are cleaner, but other than that, it's not all that amazing.
Vanguard

-----
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8550/screenshot00000ky6.jpg

http://www.pub.goha.ru/news/mmorpg/vanguard/scr/vsoh86.jpg

http://www.firingsquad.com/media/galleries/vanguard_sept27/07.jpg

http://www.vanguardonline.ru/images/photo/1/45.JPG

http://www.vanguardonline.ru/images/photo/1/39.JPG
Dark Age of Camelot

-----
http://myst.z.free.fr/picz/screens_daoc/big_glast_11.jpg

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/5980/drhorse0195ie.jpg

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/7940/drhorse0216ik.jpg

http://www.ic-games.co.uk/images/screenshots/3454/screenshots/3.jpg http://www.gucomics.com/images/screenshots/vanguard/gu_11.jpg http://www.pub.goha.ru/news/mmorpg/vanguard/scr/vsoh86.jpg

What do you guys think? Do you think games really look all that "amazing" these days? or does the advanced gameplay of our "first gen MMOs" still beat the new comers?

Well DAoC in those screenshots looks better than when I last played it. It looks nothing like Vanguard, but maybe thats because I can play Vanguard with every setting maxed

Oh my old computer would play vanguard on the highesty quality settings too but certainly not with every setting maxed and at 1920x1200 like my new rig and it sounded like it was going to blow up to boot lol

darkedone02 · February 2007

Dark age of camelot is better in my opinion, cause it's not bugged invested just like Vanguard, Dark Age of Camelot also don't lag 24/7, and Dark age of camelot is better cause of the R vs R.

Vanguard Online is a embrassment, sigil online need to develop something else then a mmorpg before they start, but since they didn't... look where it got them.

wjrasmussen · February 2007

Originally posted by darkedone02

Dark age of camelot is better in my opinion, cause it's not bugged invested just like Vanguard, Dark Age of Camelot also don't lag 24/7, and Dark age of camelot is better cause of the R vs R.

Vanguard Online is a embrassment, sigil online need to develop something else then a mmorpg before they start, but since they didn't... look where it got them.

But could people start today and do well at the lower levels? I don't know the current state of the game....

Howdy, Stranger!

Vanguard VS Dark Age of Camelot

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Vanguard VS Dark Age of Camelot

Comments