the lack of understanding of computers and 3d technology in this thread is staggering. i could explain why things are the way they are with regards to this issue but frankly, none of you would understand it so I wont even bother. in "user" speak its like this..... in pc gaming you either learn to upgrade with the six to eight month product cycle the video card companies are on, or you dont pc game. if money is the issue preventing this, buy a console, or alternatively, get a job that can afford you to be a pc gamer. its a niche market and is not for everyone. the constitution doesnt afford you the "right to game on the pc" and no... life isn't fair. sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be. sounds harsh i know, but thats reality kids....
While perhaps a bit harsh, I must say Cerebix is correct.
I was working on a multi skew title 3 years ago for X-Box, PS2 & PC (the title was a bit racy so no Gamecube). One of The biggest pains was trying to dumb down the PC version because of a miriad of settups. You know the story, some have the latest greatest while others milk all they can form a 4-5 year old systems.
It's high time people think of their gamming PC's like platform systems because I assure you publishers are.Companies are going to try and push the envelope and push those systems to the hilt both graphicly and Audio wise (claps for audio).
In short get used to it.
Frankly the thought of playing something that looks like WOW two years from now is ludicrous. Just Imagine what XBOX360 & PS3 games will be pushing. Remember these new systems are ALL internet ready.
So unless you want the MMO genre to eventually go console you better wake up. WOW has brought allot of platform gammers to the dance. In order to keep them here companies will have to bring the noise in all aspects.
Cutting edge graphics & audio are here to stay folks might as well upgrade those 3-4 year old systems.
MMO's are already moving cross-platform (eg. Age of Conan on XBox360)... why should people accept having to spend thousands on upgrading their PC rig? Soon enough they'll be able to get the same game on a box that costs a few hundred instead. And trying to convince the average PC consumer that they should be forking out every few months on an upgrade because you developers can't be bothered sweating over having to write back-dated code is probably not gonna wash. Suck it up, soldier.
That was an interesting survey. I don't know how scientific it was, but I think it indicates that, surprise, there are a lot of PC gamers that are not upgrading their systems every six to eight months.
What are those pretentious jerks thinking?
For MMOGs purely though, I think the question will come down to if they subscribe to the game when and if they upgrade their systems. As in, will Vanguard and EQ2 continually attract new users in the coming years? Or are they good enough that people will play it on minimal settings and enjoy it?
I think if the answer to those questions is "no", then they are hampering themselves and the number of subscriptions they'll get. And in turn the communities gathered on their servers. Personally, I think that if the current high-end niche is not large enough to occupy Vanguard or any MMO that comes out, it'll never have the launch it needs to get momentum to attract new users when they do upgrade.
Plus, the timing seems pretty bad to me. I don't have the money to upgrade now, and I'd be leary because I don't want to buy Vista yet too, and it kind of seems like getting XP again would be counterintuitive because DX10 won't be out on it. Awkward.
Graphics are key to achieving an immersive RPG experience. If that wasn't the case then we'd still be playing text based RPGs.
It's self centered greed that drives people to want the march of technology and progress to come to a halt just so they don't have to get off the ride.
Steam's Survey on User PC Specs That was an interesting survey. I don't know how scientific it was, but I think it indicates that, surprise, there are a lot of PC gamers that are not upgrading their systems every six to eight months.
What that survey proves is that the vast majority of PC gamers are equipped to play Vanguard on balanced settings with good FPS.
The upgrade cycle is more like one to one and half years for the average gamer. Because waiting 2 years to upgrade puts you too far behind.
Upgrading every six to eight months will keep you on top of things, but for most it costs too much to retire components before it's totally necessary.
While I think the posts tone was condesending, it had a certain amount of truth to it.
First, I would say that it is important to keep up with technology when it comes to gaming. I don't know about you all, but I don't want a brand new game that can play on components that are 3 or 4 years old. It wouldn't look and feel as good to me, but then I get bored easily, so a game system has to have style and gameplay elements as well, but grand graphics can keep me hooked for a good amount of time.
It is the reality of technology, and why shoudl gaming be different, that it advances. And relatively quickly. though I would argue not 6 or 8 months... really it has been 3 years or so since SM 2.0 cards came out, something more like 5 since DX9... now we are getting to SM 3 and DX 10, another 3-6 months and you will have to upgrade if you want to game at the edge. But reality is another year to 1 1/2 years till you really have to upgrade.
I am not sure if its really a matter of companies wanting to allow users with older rigs access to thier games as much as it takes a new MMO and engine 2-4 years to develope. That should give you an idea about how up to spec in technology MMOs are. DX 10 has been available to developers for just over a year now... Hardware physics for closer to 2 years... and the hardware for either is still not really worth buying at the prices they are at now.
Bottom line, IMHO, save your dough, buy top of the line every 2 years or so and you will be set. My rig is aobut 1 1/2 years old now, and until those DX10 games come out, I still haven't had a problem pumping up the settings on any game out there and playing at a solid fps and with stability... but its coming folks, about time to upgrade.
Welcome to the Information Age, it evolves faster than Ford could ever dream of.
Graphics are key to achieving an immersive RPG experience. If that wasn't the case then we'd still be playing text based RPGs.
It's self centered greed that drives people to want the march of technology and progress to come to a halt just so they don't have to get off the ride.
Of course graphics are a big part (arguably the biggest) of creating an immersive experience in an MMO. But "graphics" doesn't necessarily HAVE to involve millions of polygons and rendered leaves & eyelashes to be satisfying and immersive. Nobody's saying that progress shouldn't continue, and I'm pretty sure that there isn't a big conspiracy of financially under-endowed Luddites trying to hold back the gaming industry. What people are (justifiably) arguing is that, given the REALITY that most people can't or won't upgrade their machines as often as yo obviously feel they should, ignoring those users is needlessly limiting your market share. Vanguard is the perfect example - it looks and runs like shit on anything but a high-spec'd machine, and it's already suffering as a result.
MMORPG's are made to play with other people yet it becomes more and more strain. Get a better computer or don't be able to play.
Also, the most idiotic thing with MMORPG's is that they contain TONS of TONS of content which fights against YOU playing together with other people! Let's take a look at some classic ones:
- Different servers (There's always different servers. Seems to hard to make it so that everyone can play with anyone)
EVE doesn't have this problem. Everyone plays on the same server cluster. At any given time there are over 20,000 players online and over 30,000 players on the cluster at peak time. No other game has this volume of players on a single server cluster. Period. Not bragging just stating that EVE has already proven that this CAN be done. And as a player of more MMORPG's than I can care to shake a stick at I have to say it really adds to the game that we are all playing together.
- Server Categories (PvP servers, RP servers and PvE servers. They never find a way so that all can fit into one server)
Again: EVE doesn't suffer this fate. There is one server cluster. If you want to "PVE" you stay in 'high sec empire' where it's relatively safe, especially if you stay in the NPC Corporations. If you want to increase your risk you can join a player corp.... venture into lowsec or, for full free PVP live in 0.0 security. It's a proven system. PVP and PVE players co-exist extremely well in EVE. DAOC is another great example of an MMO that successfully integrated PVP and PVE into one server type. Sure they eventually created other types but they were hardly 'necessary' and were never too terribly popular compared to the normal servers.
- Levels (The stoneage ground for a RP game back in the days where skills could not be a fact and levels had to be a replacement system instead. Sadly this system hangs around today aswell screening off players as they are not allowed to play together due to level differences)
UO, EVE, Pre-CU SWG are some examples of MMORPG's with no level systems. All 3 of those titles either are or were successful in their time. Matter of fact both EVE and UO are still doing well (and with UO it's notable that it's been going the longest of any MMORPG in existance). Only SWG is dying and that's because SOE/LEC changed it from a skill system to a class/level system.
- Classes (Also a stoneage system that makes you receive one role in the game and to be able to succeed you must collect all different pieces of different classes in one group to be able to succeed. If you are a healer and your ally is a healer then you might not be able to play together due to there being to many healers in the group).
See above. Same statement.
Hmmm sounds like you'd probably enjoy EVE... it's got it's faults, don't get me wrong. But every single one of your complaints is not true in EVE.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
It's silly to think that everyone who plays PC games at all should be concerned with upgrading on a regular basis. I mean, when it comes to how money is spent, playing online games just isn't important enough for me to put it over buying a new car, a new computer for the family business, or even a new washing machine. I wash a hell of a lot of laundry. I'd definitely take a whiz-bang washer with all the bells and whistles over a new PC.
Point blank: people buy the games they can play. A FEW people upgrade regularly just for gaming. Most of the people I know upgrade by buying a new PC when their old one breaks or they can get a really good deal. A game like WoW that has low system specs is going to be far more attractive to Johnny playing on the computer his dad handed down to him and to Mikey who just wants to have a little fun without having to know what a video card is or how to install one. Their friend Joey might be willing to upgrade to play Vanguard, but why should they when they can have fun with what they've got? If Joey thinks he's smarter and cooler than Johnny and Mikey, so be it.
I upgraded our old computers with more RAM and inexpensive video cards and we've gotten a little more mileage out of them. We can even play EQ2 now. We'll probably get new computers before the end of the year and pass these down, but it won't be for the sake of playing Vanguard or whatever. That crap just doesn't even rate on the scale of reasons to upgrade.
... This is where I draw the line: __________________.
Well made thread. I couldn't agree more with the OP. Sure, good graphics are nice, but when it comes to games that look like Vanguard and you have to group up with 8 people, you'll get horrible frames. MMo's should not be graphic whore.
/played-mmorpgs
Total time played:9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds
No, but I'm all for giving us enough graphic options to scale the demand that is relevant to our computer.
If I want to have a kick ass video card, I want kick ass graphics. If you are a poor cheap sucker I'm not going to have my games ruined for you.
Plus Vanguard has only been out for a nine days. You can't make a stupid comment about a low player base when the game has been live for only 216 hours(nine days) compared to WoW 17,520 hours(two years). I'm all for everyone voicing their opinion, but don't try and tell developers what kind of graphics I want.
MMO's are about gameplay, classes, quests, innovating mechanics (or stuff in general )
But I guess all these über-graphics come from the aspect of this newborn generation of gamers, I'm 16, yet I do believe I'm one of the previous (due to my early gaming habits and my old console games addiction).
Anywho, this newborn, upcoming, rising or whatever new generation is into the shizzle (über-graphics) and they are way too lame and oh so 1337 that they can't play with bad/old graphics.
My friend, who is one of them, "ROFL'D" when he saw I was addicted to EQ Uno.
I don't have the patience to read every post on this thread today. So if I repeat anything that's been said before.... oh well...
First off, MMORPGs differ from "fire and forget" single player games in their expected longevity. Given, some single / multi player games have stood the test of time really well (Starcraft, Counter-Strike, Diablo, etc). Point is, they were never meant to last that long. Most MMORPGs are developed with the assumption that the game will last for five years. UO has gone on for nearly ten years already. There are MUDs that go all the way back to 1992! If you want your game to still be around 10 to 15 years from now, you'd better make it as graphically impressive as you can right now, because you probably won't be able to overhaul the client later.
Next up is the fact that we are quickly reaching the upward limit of what we can do graphically. This is why hardware manufacturers are starting to push parallel technology like SLI and DuoCore. The idea is that, at some point in the future, we'll all be using miniature render farms to run games on. This to me is a stupid idea. Why? Because after a certain point the human brain fails to distinguish between differing levels of detail. One of the most common complaints I heard about the XBox 360 is that people didn't notice much difference, graphically, between regular Xbox games and 360 games. Why buy a whole new system when you aren't even going to be able to tell that it's new.
Finally, I would rather have interesting artwork in a game that shitty art that's overworked with technical graphics effects. I remember one indie knock of of Monkey Ball that bump mapped and shaded everything to the point that it made your eyes bleed. It didn't affect the gameplay, and it looked ugly to boot. It's great that game artists have those tools available, but it's also nice if they get a chance to learn how to use them correctly.
Obviously, if you're making a boxed P2P, you want it to take advantage of as many graphical doo-dads as possible in order to justify the box price and insure longevity. If you're making a downloadable item shop game, you want the systems specs at the lowest acceptable level in order to accommodate the largest player base possible.
Trust me, if you really want to play with A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE, play an item shop game. Their populations are usually as big, if not bigger than most P2P games, and the system requirements are about two years behind their P2P counterparts.
It seems to me that much of the money spent by developers on graphics is all about marketing. If the screenshots look good, more people will subscribe. It's all about that first impression.
The OP was pointing out that it would be better to put more effort/money into gameplay, and while I like good graphics, if it's a choice between the two, gameplay will win me over every time.
The old text MUDs have been mentioned once or twice on this thread, and in my opinion, no mmorpg has come anywhere close to the gameplay on the best MUDs, and I think we could safely blame graphics for much of that, because you will always be limited to the animations you programme as to what your character can do. Any new usable object, will cost serious money and time to add. This is a highly limiting factor to gameplay options.
For me a role-playing game needs as much freedom and as many options as possible. I would choose that over jaw-dropping graphics if it was a balance of how developers spent their time.
I don't have the patience to read every post on this thread today. So if I repeat anything that's been said before.... oh well...
First off, MMORPGs differ from "fire and forget" single player games in their expected longevity. Given, some single / multi player games have stood the test of time really well (Starcraft, Counter-Strike, Diablo, etc). Point is, they were never meant to last that long. Most MMORPGs are developed with the assumption that the game will last for five years. UO has gone on for nearly ten years already. There are MUDs that go all the way back to 1992! If you want your game to still be around 10 to 15 years from now, you'd better make it as graphically impressive as you can right now, because you probably won't be able to overhaul the client later.
Next up is the fact that we are quickly reaching the upward limit of what we can do graphically. This is why hardware manufacturers are starting to push parallel technology like SLI and DuoCore. The idea is that, at some point in the future, we'll all be using miniature render farms to run games on. This to me is a stupid idea. Why? Because after a certain point the human brain fails to distinguish between differing levels of detail. One of the most common complaints I heard about the XBox 360 is that people didn't notice much difference, graphically, between regular Xbox games and 360 games. Why buy a whole new system when you aren't even going to be able to tell that it's new.
Finally, I would rather have interesting artwork in a game that shitty art that's overworked with technical graphics effects. I remember one indie knock of of Monkey Ball that bump mapped and shaded everything to the point that it made your eyes bleed. It didn't affect the gameplay, and it looked ugly to boot. It's great that game artists have those tools available, but it's also nice if they get a chance to learn how to use them correctly.
Obviously, if you're making a boxed P2P, you want it to take advantage of as many graphical doo-dads as possible in order to justify the box price and insure longevity. If you're making a downloadable item shop game, you want the systems specs at the lowest acceptable level in order to accommodate the largest player base possible.
Trust me, if you really want to play with A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE, play an item shop game. Their populations are usually as big, if not bigger than most P2P games, and the system requirements are about two years behind their P2P counterparts.
What i was trying to say was games should improve graphically yes but mmorpgs should not to a extent, if you plan on making a mmorpg look great like vanguard tried to make sure it looks good on all settings like many mmorpgs and games look awesome on max settings but stilll look good on low settings.
Come on has any one ever seen vanguard with high preformance setting? it looks worse then EQ1. If a game relys on grouping you should not try to sell to one half of the market in which that market is the lower of the pie chart.
For example lets say we have 100% computer gamers, 70% of them have computers between the low-mid range, 30% of them have computers to the highend range that can handle everything on max settings. Now which market are you going to attract and try to sell to? Selling to the people with low-mid range = more population = more players = more grouping and vanguards main aspect is what? GROUPING you cant group with out players. Also more players = more choosable class options when the already low player base all decides to play dps or healers your only left with one option.
Also i believe they could of toned vanguard down alot and still made it look fantastic there are alot of things being used graphically wise in vanguard which should not be, in other words vanguard was overdone to look good.
If it 's a choice between brilliant graphics and brilliant gameplay, then, yeah... graphics would take a back seat. If you can manage both, give me all the bells and whistles and something I can configure downwards if I have to. Having said that, if the game is very ugly, I simply won't play. I'd much rather even play a MUD than look at something unpleasant.
the lack of understanding of computers and 3d technology in this thread is staggering. i could explain why things are the way they are with regards to this issue but frankly, none of you would understand it so I wont even bother. in "user" speak its like this..... in pc gaming you either learn to upgrade with the six to eight month product cycle the video card companies are on, or you dont pc game. if money is the issue preventing this, buy a console, or alternatively, get a job that can afford you to be a pc gamer. its a niche market and is not for everyone. the constitution doesnt afford you the "right to game on the pc" and no... life isn't fair. sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be. sounds harsh i know, but thats reality kids....
While perhaps a bit harsh, I must say Cerebix is correct.
I was working on a multi skew title 3 years ago for X-Box, PS2 & PC (the title was a bit racy so no Gamecube). One of The biggest pains was trying to dumb down the PC version because of a miriad of settups. You know the story, some have the latest greatest while others milk all they can form a 4-5 year old systems.
It's high time people think of their gamming PC's like platform systems because I assure you publishers are.Companies are going to try and push the envelope and push those systems to the hilt both graphicly and Audio wise (claps for audio).
In short get used to it.
Frankly the thought of playing something that looks like WOW two years from now is ludicrous. Just Imagine what XBOX360 & PS3 games will be pushing. Remember these new systems are ALL internet ready.
So unless you want the MMO genre to eventually go console you better wake up. WOW has brought allot of platform gammers to the dance. In order to keep them here companies will have to bring the noise in all aspects.
Cutting edge graphics & audio are here to stay folks might as well upgrade those 3-4 year old systems.
MMO's are already moving cross-platform (eg. Age of Conan on XBox360)... why should people accept having to spend thousands on upgrading their PC rig? Soon enough they'll be able to get the same game on a box that costs a few hundred instead. And trying to convince the average PC consumer that they should be forking out every few months on an upgrade because you developers can't be bothered sweating over having to write back-dated code is probably not gonna wash. Suck it up, soldier.
The question is do you want to loose the majority of MMO's to platform systems because companies are ready to do it. It's not about accepting anything. Fact is CPU games are a pain in the arse because of all the configurations and publishers will have no problem if you don't want they're buisness. Don't forget there are Millions who own PS3's and X-Box360's.
MMO's have put life back into a dying computer game market and some are complaining about upgrading CPU's every 3 years??
I know it's en-vouge bashing Vanguard as the poster boy for high end graphics gone wild and to some extent it's deseved. However you all know good and well breathtaking games like EQII, GW, & Lineage II, run quite nicely on midrange systems don't we.
The point I'm making is.. companies aren't going to stop pushing the envelope and the market dictates they shouldn't. Now..complaining about a poorly optimized game with Vanguard's performance is justified.
Complaining that games like VG, EQ2, L2 or GW won't run on you're 2.0 Ghz Celeron isn't justified.
How are they gonna expect people to raid without turning the detail completetely down? It also breaks the immersion having to fiddle with the settings every five minutes. At least make sure the game engine is scaleable for slower machines, without making it look like crap.
Comments
While perhaps a bit harsh, I must say Cerebix is correct.
I was working on a multi skew title 3 years ago for X-Box, PS2 & PC (the title was a bit racy so no Gamecube). One of The biggest pains was trying to dumb down the PC version because of a miriad of settups. You know the story, some have the latest greatest while others milk all they can form a 4-5 year old systems.
It's high time people think of their gamming PC's like platform systems because I assure you publishers are.Companies are going to try and push the envelope and push those systems to the hilt both graphicly and Audio wise (claps for audio).
In short get used to it.
Frankly the thought of playing something that looks like WOW two years from now is ludicrous. Just Imagine what XBOX360 & PS3 games will be pushing. Remember these new systems are ALL internet ready.
So unless you want the MMO genre to eventually go console you better wake up. WOW has brought allot of platform gammers to the dance. In order to keep them here companies will have to bring the noise in all aspects.
Cutting edge graphics & audio are here to stay folks might as well upgrade those 3-4 year old systems.
MMO's are already moving cross-platform (eg. Age of Conan on XBox360)... why should people accept having to spend thousands on upgrading their PC rig? Soon enough they'll be able to get the same game on a box that costs a few hundred instead. And trying to convince the average PC consumer that they should be forking out every few months on an upgrade because you developers can't be bothered sweating over having to write back-dated code is probably not gonna wash. Suck it up, soldier.
Steam's Survey on User PC Specs
That was an interesting survey. I don't know how scientific it was, but I think it indicates that, surprise, there are a lot of PC gamers that are not upgrading their systems every six to eight months.
What are those pretentious jerks thinking?
For MMOGs purely though, I think the question will come down to if they subscribe to the game when and if they upgrade their systems. As in, will Vanguard and EQ2 continually attract new users in the coming years? Or are they good enough that people will play it on minimal settings and enjoy it?
I think if the answer to those questions is "no", then they are hampering themselves and the number of subscriptions they'll get. And in turn the communities gathered on their servers. Personally, I think that if the current high-end niche is not large enough to occupy Vanguard or any MMO that comes out, it'll never have the launch it needs to get momentum to attract new users when they do upgrade.
Plus, the timing seems pretty bad to me. I don't have the money to upgrade now, and I'd be leary because I don't want to buy Vista yet too, and it kind of seems like getting XP again would be counterintuitive because DX10 won't be out on it. Awkward.
It's self centered greed that drives people to want the march of technology and progress to come to a halt just so they don't have to get off the ride.
The upgrade cycle is more like one to one and half years for the average gamer. Because waiting 2 years to upgrade puts you too far behind.
Upgrading every six to eight months will keep you on top of things, but for most it costs too much to retire components before it's totally necessary.
First, I would say that it is important to keep up with technology when it comes to gaming. I don't know about you all, but I don't want a brand new game that can play on components that are 3 or 4 years old. It wouldn't look and feel as good to me, but then I get bored easily, so a game system has to have style and gameplay elements as well, but grand graphics can keep me hooked for a good amount of time.
It is the reality of technology, and why shoudl gaming be different, that it advances. And relatively quickly. though I would argue not 6 or 8 months... really it has been 3 years or so since SM 2.0 cards came out, something more like 5 since DX9... now we are getting to SM 3 and DX 10, another 3-6 months and you will have to upgrade if you want to game at the edge. But reality is another year to 1 1/2 years till you really have to upgrade.
I am not sure if its really a matter of companies wanting to allow users with older rigs access to thier games as much as it takes a new MMO and engine 2-4 years to develope. That should give you an idea about how up to spec in technology MMOs are. DX 10 has been available to developers for just over a year now... Hardware physics for closer to 2 years... and the hardware for either is still not really worth buying at the prices they are at now.
Bottom line, IMHO, save your dough, buy top of the line every 2 years or so and you will be set. My rig is aobut 1 1/2 years old now, and until those DX10 games come out, I still haven't had a problem pumping up the settings on any game out there and playing at a solid fps and with stability... but its coming folks, about time to upgrade.
Welcome to the Information Age, it evolves faster than Ford could ever dream of.
Cheers!
Of course graphics are a big part (arguably the biggest) of creating an immersive experience in an MMO. But "graphics" doesn't necessarily HAVE to involve millions of polygons and rendered leaves & eyelashes to be satisfying and immersive. Nobody's saying that progress shouldn't continue, and I'm pretty sure that there isn't a big conspiracy of financially under-endowed Luddites trying to hold back the gaming industry. What people are (justifiably) arguing is that, given the REALITY that most people can't or won't upgrade their machines as often as yo obviously feel they should, ignoring those users is needlessly limiting your market share. Vanguard is the perfect example - it looks and runs like shit on anything but a high-spec'd machine, and it's already suffering as a result.
Again: EVE doesn't suffer this fate. There is one server cluster. If you want to "PVE" you stay in 'high sec empire' where it's relatively safe, especially if you stay in the NPC Corporations. If you want to increase your risk you can join a player corp.... venture into lowsec or, for full free PVP live in 0.0 security. It's a proven system. PVP and PVE players co-exist extremely well in EVE. DAOC is another great example of an MMO that successfully integrated PVP and PVE into one server type. Sure they eventually created other types but they were hardly 'necessary' and were never too terribly popular compared to the normal servers.
UO, EVE, Pre-CU SWG are some examples of MMORPG's with no level systems. All 3 of those titles either are or were successful in their time. Matter of fact both EVE and UO are still doing well (and with UO it's notable that it's been going the longest of any MMORPG in existance). Only SWG is dying and that's because SOE/LEC changed it from a skill system to a class/level system.
See above. Same statement.
Hmmm sounds like you'd probably enjoy EVE... it's got it's faults, don't get me wrong. But every single one of your complaints is not true in EVE.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
It's silly to think that everyone who plays PC games at all should be concerned with upgrading on a regular basis. I mean, when it comes to how money is spent, playing online games just isn't important enough for me to put it over buying a new car, a new computer for the family business, or even a new washing machine. I wash a hell of a lot of laundry. I'd definitely take a whiz-bang washer with all the bells and whistles over a new PC.
Point blank: people buy the games they can play. A FEW people upgrade regularly just for gaming. Most of the people I know upgrade by buying a new PC when their old one breaks or they can get a really good deal. A game like WoW that has low system specs is going to be far more attractive to Johnny playing on the computer his dad handed down to him and to Mikey who just wants to have a little fun without having to know what a video card is or how to install one. Their friend Joey might be willing to upgrade to play Vanguard, but why should they when they can have fun with what they've got? If Joey thinks he's smarter and cooler than Johnny and Mikey, so be it.
I upgraded our old computers with more RAM and inexpensive video cards and we've gotten a little more mileage out of them. We can even play EQ2 now. We'll probably get new computers before the end of the year and pass these down, but it won't be for the sake of playing Vanguard or whatever. That crap just doesn't even rate on the scale of reasons to upgrade.
...
This is where I draw the line: __________________.
"Before this battle is over all the world will know that few...stood against many." - King Leonidas
Total time played: 9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds
Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds
If I want to have a kick ass video card, I want kick ass graphics. If you are a poor cheap sucker I'm not going to have my games ruined for you.
Plus Vanguard has only been out for a nine days. You can't make a stupid comment about a low player base when the game has been live for only 216 hours(nine days) compared to WoW 17,520 hours(two years). I'm all for everyone voicing their opinion, but don't try and tell developers what kind of graphics I want.
MMO's are about gameplay, classes, quests, innovating mechanics (or stuff in general
But I guess all these über-graphics come from the aspect of this newborn generation of gamers, I'm 16, yet I do believe I'm one of the previous (due to my early gaming habits and my old console games addiction).
Anywho, this newborn, upcoming, rising or whatever new generation is into the shizzle (über-graphics) and they are way too lame and oh so 1337 that they can't play with bad/old graphics.
My friend, who is one of them, "ROFL'D" when he saw I was addicted to EQ Uno.
EDIT: Woops, I made a mistake I'm 16 not 15.
_____________________________
I Am Special K.
First off, MMORPGs differ from "fire and forget" single player games in their expected longevity. Given, some single / multi player games have stood the test of time really well (Starcraft, Counter-Strike, Diablo, etc). Point is, they were never meant to last that long. Most MMORPGs are developed with the assumption that the game will last for five years. UO has gone on for nearly ten years already. There are MUDs that go all the way back to 1992! If you want your game to still be around 10 to 15 years from now, you'd better make it as graphically impressive as you can right now, because you probably won't be able to overhaul the client later.
Next up is the fact that we are quickly reaching the upward limit of what we can do graphically. This is why hardware manufacturers are starting to push parallel technology like SLI and DuoCore. The idea is that, at some point in the future, we'll all be using miniature render farms to run games on. This to me is a stupid idea. Why? Because after a certain point the human brain fails to distinguish between differing levels of detail. One of the most common complaints I heard about the XBox 360 is that people didn't notice much difference, graphically, between regular Xbox games and 360 games. Why buy a whole new system when you aren't even going to be able to tell that it's new.
Finally, I would rather have interesting artwork in a game that shitty art that's overworked with technical graphics effects. I remember one indie knock of of Monkey Ball that bump mapped and shaded everything to the point that it made your eyes bleed. It didn't affect the gameplay, and it looked ugly to boot. It's great that game artists have those tools available, but it's also nice if they get a chance to learn how to use them correctly.
Obviously, if you're making a boxed P2P, you want it to take advantage of as many graphical doo-dads as possible in order to justify the box price and insure longevity. If you're making a downloadable item shop game, you want the systems specs at the lowest acceptable level in order to accommodate the largest player base possible.
Trust me, if you really want to play with A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE, play an item shop game. Their populations are usually as big, if not bigger than most P2P games, and the system requirements are about two years behind their P2P counterparts.
It seems to me that much of the money spent by developers on graphics is all about marketing. If the screenshots look good, more people will subscribe. It's all about that first impression.
The OP was pointing out that it would be better to put more effort/money into gameplay, and while I like good graphics, if it's a choice between the two, gameplay will win me over every time.
The old text MUDs have been mentioned once or twice on this thread, and in my opinion, no mmorpg has come anywhere close to the gameplay on the best MUDs, and I think we could safely blame graphics for much of that, because you will always be limited to the animations you programme as to what your character can do. Any new usable object, will cost serious money and time to add. This is a highly limiting factor to gameplay options.
For me a role-playing game needs as much freedom and as many options as possible. I would choose that over jaw-dropping graphics if it was a balance of how developers spent their time.
Come on has any one ever seen vanguard with high preformance setting? it looks worse then EQ1. If a game relys on grouping you should not try to sell to one half of the market in which that market is the lower of the pie chart.
For example lets say we have 100% computer gamers, 70% of them have computers between the low-mid range, 30% of them have computers to the highend range that can handle everything on max settings. Now which market are you going to attract and try to sell to? Selling to the people with low-mid range = more population = more players = more grouping and vanguards main aspect is what? GROUPING you cant group with out players. Also more players = more choosable class options when the already low player base all decides to play dps or healers your only left with one option.
Also i believe they could of toned vanguard down alot and still made it look fantastic there are alot of things being used graphically wise in vanguard which should not be, in other words vanguard was overdone to look good.
While perhaps a bit harsh, I must say Cerebix is correct.
I was working on a multi skew title 3 years ago for X-Box, PS2 & PC (the title was a bit racy so no Gamecube). One of The biggest pains was trying to dumb down the PC version because of a miriad of settups. You know the story, some have the latest greatest while others milk all they can form a 4-5 year old systems.
It's high time people think of their gamming PC's like platform systems because I assure you publishers are.Companies are going to try and push the envelope and push those systems to the hilt both graphicly and Audio wise (claps for audio).
In short get used to it.
Frankly the thought of playing something that looks like WOW two years from now is ludicrous. Just Imagine what XBOX360 & PS3 games will be pushing. Remember these new systems are ALL internet ready.
So unless you want the MMO genre to eventually go console you better wake up. WOW has brought allot of platform gammers to the dance. In order to keep them here companies will have to bring the noise in all aspects.
Cutting edge graphics & audio are here to stay folks might as well upgrade those 3-4 year old systems.
MMO's are already moving cross-platform (eg. Age of Conan on XBox360)... why should people accept having to spend thousands on upgrading their PC rig? Soon enough they'll be able to get the same game on a box that costs a few hundred instead. And trying to convince the average PC consumer that they should be forking out every few months on an upgrade because you developers can't be bothered sweating over having to write back-dated code is probably not gonna wash. Suck it up, soldier.
The question is do you want to loose the majority of MMO's to platform systems because companies are ready to do it. It's not about accepting anything. Fact is CPU games are a pain in the arse because of all the configurations and publishers will have no problem if you don't want they're buisness. Don't forget there are Millions who own PS3's and X-Box360's.
MMO's have put life back into a dying computer game market and some are complaining about upgrading CPU's every 3 years??
I know it's en-vouge bashing Vanguard as the poster boy for high end graphics gone wild and to some extent it's deseved. However you all know good and well breathtaking games like EQII, GW, & Lineage II, run quite nicely on midrange systems don't we.
The point I'm making is.. companies aren't going to stop pushing the envelope and the market dictates they shouldn't. Now..complaining about a poorly optimized game with Vanguard's performance is justified.
Complaining that games like VG, EQ2, L2 or GW won't run on you're 2.0 Ghz Celeron isn't justified.
Dutchess Zarraa Voltayre
Reborn/Zero Sum/Ancient Legacy/Jagged Legion/Feared/Nuke & Pave.
How are they gonna expect people to raid without turning the detail completetely down? It also breaks the immersion having to fiddle with the settings every five minutes. At least make sure the game engine is scaleable for slower machines, without making it look like crap.
/flush (vanguard down the toilet).