Come on now. You really have to admit these games just look so similar.............
-Hasani-
Negative. About the Only things that look "the same" in those picures are the obvious things: The're both human type characters, they are both wearing clothes, and they are both standing still.
The WoW Human is Much smoother with greatly reduced detail and texture. The Background is very smoothed out and lacking detail....infact in comparison to the other picture i would call it blurry. Blah blah...[Just imagine me pointing out every little difference].
Fact is they are both human characters.....how exactly are you going to draw a human character that looks realistic, but is also revolutionary compared to what humans in other games before have looked like? You can't. All you can do is either make them Rediculously cartoony(which has been done before) or as real as possible(which has also been done before). So going by that definition, Any game that uses humans is just copying all the games before it that also used humans (Or Orcs, or elves, or dwarves, or evil humans, or skeletons, or zombies, or mutants, or goblins, or aliens, or dragons, or giants....you get the idea.)
You guys really should read the rest of his post. The first line was sarcasm. The very next line says he tried to keep a straight face while saying that and couldn't.
I hate all these WoW looks WAR or WAR looks like WoW, but heres some screens and both look good IMHO, im sure if WoW was released this year we would see much more detailed visuals, comparing a game almost 3 years apart (we all know hoe fast computers more on) is a moo point.
And a dwarf looks like a dwarf and an orc looks like an orc.
You guys really should read the rest of his post. The first line was sarcasm. The very next line says he tried to keep a straight face while saying that and couldn't.
Reading FTW.
DuraheLL and eumenidex simply lost their "reading comprehension" /rolls, that's all.
But seriously, people need to learn that sarcasm doesn't translate well to written text.
Seriously. It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
You guys really should read the rest of his post. The first line was sarcasm. The very next line says he tried to keep a straight face while saying that and couldn't.
Reading FTW.
DuraheLL and eumenidex simply lost their "reading comprehension" /rolls, that's all.
But seriously, people need to learn that sarcasm doesn't translate well to written text.
Geehhrr... low amount of sleep and a long day -_- This sarcasm thing is wearing me out
$OE lies list http://www.rlmmo.com/viewtopic.php?t=424&start=0 " And I don't want to hear anything about "I don't believe in vampires" because *I* don't believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what *I* saw is ******* vampires! "
You guys really should read the rest of his post. The first line was sarcasm. The very next line says he tried to keep a straight face while saying that and couldn't.
Reading FTW.
DuraheLL and eumenidex simply lost their "reading comprehension" /rolls, that's all.
But seriously, people need to learn that sarcasm doesn't translate well to written text.
That's why so many people are going to the whole
/sarcasm on
/sarcasm off
Thing. Emotion and subtle aspects of spoken language are hard to translate into text like you say. That's a major reason so many posts get blown out of proportion.
WAR is following the Warhammer Fantasy Battle art style. That's all that needs to be said about it. If it looks like WoW, who cares. WFB is 25 years old and the art has developed over that amount of time. All that matters is we will get to play in the world we've only dreamed of and took an outside perspective on for the last 25 years. Who cares about anything else? Really?
One must understand that there are certain limitations to how specific races look especially within the well established fantasy genre. Orcs are almost always green. Dwarfs are almost always short with beards there is only so much design can do to make them different. Also in the screenshot of the Human and Chaos Magus posted I think its obvious (all technical qualities aside) that the design is similar if a little darker (though this is Chaos we are talking about).
As to balance and classes. I have never really minded it. I have found myself to be on (what a lot of people claimed) the bottom of the food chain and still managed to not only enjoy myself but kick ass. I had my times of hardship but for me its all about playing the game and I have never had a problem even with the weakest classes. I have not played Dark Age of Camelot though I hope to perhaps give it a whirl over the summer. I have faith Mythic will do the best to adapt to the changes in player base and to balance classes, but even so I think its up to what you make of the class and with CC and Stuns gone I dont think balancing will be too much of an issue to be honest. Just keep the gear discrepancies in check.
Come on now. You really have to admit these games just look so similar.............
-Hasani-
Negative. About the Only things that look "the same" in those picures are the obvious things: The're both human type characters, they are both wearing clothes, and they are both standing still.
The WoW Human is Much smoother with greatly reduced detail and texture. The Background is very smoothed out and lacking detail....infact in comparison to the other picture i would call it blurry. Blah blah...[Just imagine me pointing out every little difference].
Fact is they are both human characters.....how exactly are you going to draw a human character that looks realistic, but is also revolutionary compared to what humans in other games before have looked like? You can't. All you can do is either make them Rediculously cartoony(which has been done before) or as real as possible(which has also been done before). So going by that definition, Any game that uses humans is just copying all the games before it that also used humans (Or Orcs, or elves, or dwarves, or evil humans, or skeletons, or zombies, or mutants, or goblins, or aliens, or dragons, or giants....you get the idea.)
You guys really should read the rest of his post. The first line was sarcasm. The very next line says he tried to keep a straight face while saying that and couldn't.
Reading FTW.
My Responce wasn't to him specificly. I just chose his post cause he showed 2 pictures and Posted in Awesome Green , which makes for easy refrence.
It was more to all people who say "XXX copied xxx"...hell, all the people who feel the need to even draw comparisons between new games and old games. Either you make a totaly superficial comparison that boils down to "I like xxx better" or you come to the conclusion that there is no comparison. Anyway, this whole discussion is off topic...
So...I think Warrior Priest and the Witch hunter both stand very good chances to be the most popular classes at this point. Tho like some one else said earlier , "this will all change when the elves come out".
The real difference is in the small details of the textures, and MOSTLY the animatiosn watch the vids of chaos magus movment on the disc (just basic movement) its is so FREAKING sweet you lean the disc the direction you move, VERY NICE .
Most of the animations are pretty sweet.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
If you really want to hurt a journalists feelings, just let him know that you skim his writing , especially when he thinks that he wrote something colorful and witty
As for "warrior priest and Witch hunter" being the most popular. Lets not forget that witch hunter has been the most popular charachter for the past TWENTY FIVE YEARS so its not like it will really be that we can expect to see 40% of a server with trenchcoats and tophats.
FLash back to 2000 the most popular chrachter designs for daoc where Eldritch (an elven caster that was supposed to use destructive magic and weild a sword) and everyones favorite, midgards THANE! (A fighter caster in the likes of thor)
it didnt really pan out well for those 2 classes come gametime. I can tell you from playing the game though, if your a wow player your going to be totally thrown off by the game ballance. I need to post the video I took. Ever see how a mage in wow can take 4-5 good shots from a warrior before they finally kill him? Well forget about cloth casters, even medium armor users dont stand toe to toe against tanks. I have video of Hammerer 3 shoting a squigg herder. Which is pretty much the way it should be, but not how people in wow would be use to it.
Best classes as for when i played where the black orc and the iron breaker.... ESPECIALLY the ironbreaker. Weakest was (supprise) the Rune priest. Engeneer played nice and was fun and innovative, but i wouldnt consiter him a powerhouse, just fun.
I hate all these WoW looks WAR or WAR looks like WoW, but heres some screens and both look good IMHO, im sure if WoW was released this year we would see much more detailed visuals, comparing a game almost 3 years apart (we all know hoe fast computers more on) is a moo point.
And a dwarf looks like a dwarf and an orc looks like an orc.
your right. Thats very unfair of me to compare wow that was launched 3 years ago yet just had a current expension to update it.... to a game not even released yet. Lets be more fair to their graphics...
One of these is from world of warcraft which was made "three years ago".
THe other image is from Dark Age of camelot (the makers of WARHAMMER ONLINE) which was created in 2001 (six and a half years ago)
DAoC Released 2001
World Of Warcraft Released 2004
Warhammer Online 2007
I dont know what else I can say. I gave one of these games a 5 on graphics and some people claim it should have been much higher, like a 8 9 or 10. You put the photo against a game from 6 years ago and games comming out this year and be the judge for yourself.
WoW Hunter 2.0? Why the f*** it's always WoW? Why not UO Tamer/Archer 2.0?
*logs back on siege*
***And yes, WoW graphics suck hard, I've been telling that to my friends since beta. But we can't really compare Blizzard and Mythic games in terms of graphics, DAoC was a masterpiece in terms of graphics and details, back when they did the graphic revamp.
Ultima Online 98~04 Dark Age of Camelot 03~07 Final Fantasy XI 04~06 Guild Wars 05~08 World of Warcraft 04~05 Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
I hate all these WoW looks WAR or WAR looks like WoW, but heres some screens and both look good IMHO, im sure if WoW was released this year we would see much more detailed visuals, comparing a game almost 3 years apart (we all know hoe fast computers more on) is a moo point.
And a dwarf looks like a dwarf and an orc looks like an orc.
your right. Thats very unfair of me to compare wow that was launched 3 years ago yet just had a current expension to update it.... to a game not even released yet. Lets be more fair to their graphics...
One of these is from world of warcraft which was made "three years ago".
THe other image is from Dark Age of camelot (the makers of WARHAMMER ONLINE) which was created in 2001 (six and a half years ago)
DAoC Released 2001
World Of Warcraft Released 2004
what else I can say. I gave one of these games a 5 on graphics and some people claim it should have been much higher, like a 8 9 or 10. You put the photo against a game from 6 years ago and games comming out this year and be the judge for yourself.
You do know that your DAOC 2001 pics are from the Catacombs releases and beyond that updated the graphics in 2004 right? Visually DAoC of 2001 and DAoC of today (or 2004) look nothing alike. So you're actually comparing the graphic styles of games that came out at the same time, Nov 2004.
Edit: too dang big with the other pics.....If you want to see the difference here is a before and after from them
You do know that your DAOC 2001 pics are from the Catacombs releases and beyond that updated the graphics in 2004 right? Visually DAoC of 2001 and DAoC of today (or 2004) look nothing alike. So you're actually comparing the graphic styles of games that came out at the same time, Nov 2004.
Edit: too dang big with the other pics.....If you want to see the difference here is a before and after from them
Why yes I do know this and thank you for pointing it our and driving home my point double fold! I actualy typed "released" not "pictures from" because, as said in my review, and in a prior post there has been more than ample enough time and manpower to upgrade graphics especially with a 2 year in the wait expansion.thats just the first point. The other point is that a game released before or at the same time as warcraft has far superior graphics to it and is the graphical predocessor of WAR, therefore WAR cant be "copycats" of Wow.
You do know that your DAOC 2001 pics are from the Catacombs releases and beyond that updated the graphics in 2004 right? Visually DAoC of 2001 and DAoC of today (or 2004) look nothing alike. So you're actually comparing the graphic styles of games that came out at the same time, Nov 2004. Edit: too dang big with the other pics.....If you want to see the difference here is a before and after from them Why yes I do know this and thank you for pointing it our and driving home my point double fold! I actualy typed "released" not "pictures from" because, as said in my review, and in a prior post there has been more than ample enough time and manpower to upgrade graphics especially with a 2 year in the wait expansion.thats just the first point. The other point is that a game released before or at the same time as warcraft has far superior graphics to it and is the graphical predocessor of WAR, therefore WAR cant be "copycats" of Wow. WAR is a sweet looking game
What i am pointing out is the disinformation in your post, you stated that a game from 2001 had better graphics than WoW, which was not accurate. What you showed was a game that had undergone a graphic update at the same time that WoW came out, a game that had been out for over 3 years and had 2 retail expansions at the time. WoW has been out for 2 and has had its first retail expansion. You claim that manpower and time have been sufficient to update the graphics, when you cannot really give an example of any other game that has done such a thing. To give a lower rating on BC's graphics because YOU think they should upgrade them is a disservice to your review. An example of what you want would be EQ's first graphics update which was 2 years after it came out, (luclin) but it was 1) Its 3rd expansion and 2) bugged all to hell to start with. Which is something Blizzard wouldn't do on the scale that SOE is known for.
Another point, of the 250+ designers, programmers, artists and sound engineers blizzard has, who were split into 1. working on patches/updates/class balancing for WoW live. 2. Working on the BC expansion. 3. Working on other Blizzard future projects and tie ins. Where were they supposed to get the bodies for a graphics update as well?
The worst part of it all is I agree that the WAR will be great and that the game itself is in no way a WoW clone. I haven't played WoW in a long time and haven't even played BC but I just have to disagree with your reasoning.
Another point, of the 250+ designers, programmers, artists and sound engineers blizzard has, who were split into 1. working on patches/updates/class balancing for WoW live. 2. Working on the BC expansion. 3. Working on other Blizzard future projects and tie ins. Where were they supposed to get the bodies for a graphics update as well?
This is an arguement that I have no interest in, or wish to take sides in, but I wanted to point something out. You do realize that Blizzard makes enough net profit in a month that they could fill a swimming pool with one dollar bills and treat their staff to the world's most lavish pool party, right? They's rich, yo! If they felt like it, they could easily hire a small team of artists and programmers to upgrade the graphics of the game. So it is perfectly feasable from a manpower/financial standpoint.
I just think they don't want to, yet. Most people seem to enjoy the visual style and art design of WoW. And it plays on some very archaic computer systems. It's possible that they'll upgrade sometime in the near future. And they'll not even notice the additional cost of doing it.
Seriously. It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
Another point, of the 250+ designers, programmers, artists and sound engineers blizzard has, who were split into 1. working on patches/updates/class balancing for WoW live. 2. Working on the BC expansion. 3. Working on other Blizzard future projects and tie ins. Where were they supposed to get the bodies for a graphics update as well?
This is an arguement that I have no interest in, or wish to take sides in, but I wanted to point something out. You do realize that Blizzard makes enough net profit in a month that they could fill a swimming pool with one dollar bills and treat their staff to the world's most lavish pool party, right? They's rich, yo! If they felt like it, they could easily hire a small team of artists and programmers to upgrade the graphics of the game. So it is perfectly feasable from a manpower/financial standpoint.
I just think they don't want to, yet. Most people seem to enjoy the visual style and art design of WoW. And it plays on some very archaic computer systems. It's possible that they'll upgrade sometime in the near future. And they'll not even notice the additional cost of doing it.
Of course they have the money, but finding that pool of programmers, designers etc is a time intensive process as well, given their penchant for releasing "when its ready" would also translate to "do they have the EXACT skills/traits/tendencies that we want" chances are they receive hundreds of apps each day for a single job posting, can you imagine how long it would take them to just hire that small team to upgrade the graphics? One of the things they post on their employment site is "don't give us a reason NOT to hire you".
I always thought the way WoW looked wasn't due to lack of funding, but more to go along with the other Warcraft games. The only graphic "updates" that I could actually see being needed would be to eliminate clipping on certain hair and beard styles/items/weapons/armor/animations. Other than that the graphics have an appeal that most other online games don't. Plus, the graphics do a lot with little resources. Without those kind of mechanics I wouldn't be playing.
In other words, I would rather have the graphics stay the same. Hell, why not assign whatever team you get to giving Priests more survivability or prehaps a team that makes Hunters less OP.
WoW Hunter 2.0? Why the f*** it's always WoW? Why not UO Tamer/Archer 2.0? *logs back on siege*
***And yes, WoW graphics suck hard, I've been telling that to my friends since beta. But we can't really compare Blizzard and Mythic games in terms of graphics, DAoC was a masterpiece in terms of graphics and details, back when they did the graphic revamp.
It would be unfair to call it UO Tamer/Archer 2.0 because there have been many games that have appeared and gained much more success. Sure, I know about the Tamer/Archers sitting at Brit Bank going DRAGONS 6k!!! Yes, I know about bards in Trammel sitting in one spot provoking and looting until they couldn't walk.
The reason I used that title was because it was the most familiar version of the concept. Also, you must remember that UO is a skill based MMORPG. The fact that anyone could train anything led to a bit more diversity. Hell, I could have said EQ Necro, AO _____, EQ2 _____, etc. It was just a more popular choice.
Also, I will say this one thousand times before I'm done. I'll make it bigger this time.
WoW graphics are not "sucky". They lower the system reqs for the game and open the experience up for people with less CPU at their disposal.
I do agree that a 5 for ratings is fair. Why? Because WoW's main appeal isn't STUNNING GRAPHICAL LOLS FOR YOUR ROFFLING APPETITE!!!!! WoW's appeal is ease of gameplay and low system reqs. People don't get addicted to a game that is too choppy to play. Sure, you might be sitting pretty in your DAoC world, but there aren't many people there. See that tumbleweed? Yeah, me too.
WoW Hunter 2.0? Why the f*** it's always WoW? Why not UO Tamer/Archer 2.0? *logs back on siege*
***And yes, WoW graphics suck hard, I've been telling that to my friends since beta. But we can't really compare Blizzard and Mythic games in terms of graphics, DAoC was a masterpiece in terms of graphics and details, back when they did the graphic revamp.
It would be unfair to call it UO Tamer/Archer 2.0 because there have been many games that have appeared and gained much more success. Sure, I know about the Tamer/Archers sitting at Brit Bank going DRAGONS 6k!!! Yes, I know about bards in Trammel sitting in one spot provoking and looting until they couldn't walk.
The reason I used that title was because it was the most familiar version of the concept. Also, you must remember that UO is a skill based MMORPG. The fact that anyone could train anything led to a bit more diversity. Hell, I could have said EQ Necro, AO _____, EQ2 _____, etc. It was just a more popular choice.
Also, I will say this one thousand times before I'm done. I'll make it bigger this time.
WoW graphics are not "sucky". They lower the system reqs for the game and open the experience up for people with less CPU at their disposal.
I do agree that a 5 for ratings is fair. Why? Because WoW's main appeal isn't STUNNING GRAPHICAL LOLS FOR YOUR ROFFLING APPETITE!!!!! WoW's appeal is ease of gameplay and low system reqs. People don't get addicted to a game that is too choppy to play. Sure, you might be sitting pretty in your DAoC world, but there aren't many people there. See that tumbleweed? Yeah, me too.
Two things
1- Notice the sarcasm next time, will ya?
2- About WoW graphics, that's like saying Tibia's graphics don't suck, that they're just that shitty so people can play it on old computers.
Nice argument btw, "I win because my game is more popular".
Ultima Online 98~04 Dark Age of Camelot 03~07 Final Fantasy XI 04~06 Guild Wars 05~08 World of Warcraft 04~05 Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
I don't see anything wrong with wow's graphics... I always thought that was Warcraft visual style... cartoonish... Also one of the reasons for WoWs success is its easyiness and low reqs...
I don't get why people cry about "cartoony or terrible graphics" then they get a game thats impossible for them to handle and cry about the game being too powerful. Isn't gameplay more important and graphics should be looked at 2nd.
Darkfall for now.
Quit bashing games YOU don't like! Including WoW, you know you liked it before you got burned out.
I don't see anything wrong with wow's graphics... I always thought that was Warcraft visual style... cartoonish... Also one of the reasons for WoWs success is its easyiness and low reqs...
I don't get why people cry about "cartoony or terrible graphics" then they get a game thats impossible for them to handle and cry about the game being too powerful. Isn't gameplay more important and graphics should be looked at 2nd.
Nope WoW has it's "own" style of graphics. It's about the same as WAR is using, thus WARs is way upgraded and more detailed of course.
$OE lies list http://www.rlmmo.com/viewtopic.php?t=424&start=0 " And I don't want to hear anything about "I don't believe in vampires" because *I* don't believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what *I* saw is ******* vampires! "
i was instantly glued to the hunter when i picked up WoW (first MMO i ever played) because i loved rangers. what i diddnt count on was the very heavy pet dependance. it really anoyed me but i went thru to 60 and found raiding 100000x better when i diddnt have my pet. it felt like i was the ranged specialist and i diddnt need a crappy pet to defend me. what i also hated was the fact that everybody else was a hunter. i have now experianced all the aspects of this anoying "ranged specialist"/pet combo and will not be trying it ever again.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds -Solid non level based game -Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
^_^ if variety is the spice of your life i think u'd love daoc's 48ish classes. please no more of the talk of WAR stealing WoW's ideas... WAR has existed since bout 1985... Hunter in daoc is one of the hardest classes in the game, if not the hardest( Dont count on the squig herder being easy like WoW's Hunter ) War = Mythic not Blizzard. Hope this clarifies a couple things ^_^.
Just look up the value of the stocks. Theres a reason why people say blizzard is a mutli million dollar corporation... because it IS, and always will be. The huge success and mass popularity of World of Warcraft alone will keep them in the green for at least the next 10-15 years.
And the debate "we keep the graphics dull so people with low system requirements can play" the statement will not hold water because A) the system req. for daoc are lower than wow (do you really think we had pentium 4 processors in 2001? my computer was top of the line at 500Mhz) and also if there was a focus on people with lower system requirements then the game would be based around small group and solo content insted of large man instances. The reason for the graphics is to match it to their previous games in look. But sorry, I cant give you bonus points for making your graphics dull on purpouse.
Comments
Negative. About the Only things that look "the same" in those picures are the obvious things: The're both human type characters, they are both wearing clothes, and they are both standing still.
The WoW Human is Much smoother with greatly reduced detail and texture. The Background is very smoothed out and lacking detail....infact in comparison to the other picture i would call it blurry. Blah blah...[Just imagine me pointing out every little difference].
Fact is they are both human characters.....how exactly are you going to draw a human character that looks realistic, but is also revolutionary compared to what humans in other games before have looked like? You can't. All you can do is either make them Rediculously cartoony(which has been done before) or as real as possible(which has also been done before). So going by that definition, Any game that uses humans is just copying all the games before it that also used humans (Or Orcs, or elves, or dwarves, or evil humans, or skeletons, or zombies, or mutants, or goblins, or aliens, or dragons, or giants....you get the idea.)
You guys really should read the rest of his post. The first line was sarcasm. The very next line says he tried to keep a straight face while saying that and couldn't.Reading FTW.
And a dwarf looks like a dwarf and an orc looks like an orc.
DuraheLL and eumenidex simply lost their "reading comprehension" /rolls, that's all.
But seriously, people need to learn that sarcasm doesn't translate well to written text.
Seriously.
It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
DuraheLL and eumenidex simply lost their "reading comprehension" /rolls, that's all.
But seriously, people need to learn that sarcasm doesn't translate well to written text.
Geehhrr... low amount of sleep and a long day -_- This sarcasm thing is wearing me out$OE lies list
http://www.rlmmo.com/viewtopic.php?t=424&start=0
"
And I don't want to hear anything about "I don't believe in vampires" because *I* don't believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what *I* saw is ******* vampires! "
DuraheLL and eumenidex simply lost their "reading comprehension" /rolls, that's all.
But seriously, people need to learn that sarcasm doesn't translate well to written text.
That's why so many people are going to the whole/sarcasm on
/sarcasm off
Thing. Emotion and subtle aspects of spoken language are hard to translate into text like you say. That's a major reason so many posts get blown out of proportion.
WAR is following the Warhammer Fantasy Battle art style. That's all that needs to be said about it. If it looks like WoW, who cares. WFB is 25 years old and the art has developed over that amount of time. All that matters is we will get to play in the world we've only dreamed of and took an outside perspective on for the last 25 years. Who cares about anything else? Really?
One must understand that there are certain limitations to how specific races look especially within the well established fantasy genre. Orcs are almost always green. Dwarfs are almost always short with beards there is only so much design can do to make them different. Also in the screenshot of the Human and Chaos Magus posted I think its obvious (all technical qualities aside) that the design is similar if a little darker (though this is Chaos we are talking about).
As to balance and classes. I have never really minded it. I have found myself to be on (what a lot of people claimed) the bottom of the food chain and still managed to not only enjoy myself but kick ass. I had my times of hardship but for me its all about playing the game and I have never had a problem even with the weakest classes. I have not played Dark Age of Camelot though I hope to perhaps give it a whirl over the summer. I have faith Mythic will do the best to adapt to the changes in player base and to balance classes, but even so I think its up to what you make of the class and with CC and Stuns gone I dont think balancing will be too much of an issue to be honest. Just keep the gear discrepancies in check.
Negative. About the Only things that look "the same" in those picures are the obvious things: The're both human type characters, they are both wearing clothes, and they are both standing still.
The WoW Human is Much smoother with greatly reduced detail and texture. The Background is very smoothed out and lacking detail....infact in comparison to the other picture i would call it blurry. Blah blah...[Just imagine me pointing out every little difference].
Fact is they are both human characters.....how exactly are you going to draw a human character that looks realistic, but is also revolutionary compared to what humans in other games before have looked like? You can't. All you can do is either make them Rediculously cartoony(which has been done before) or as real as possible(which has also been done before). So going by that definition, Any game that uses humans is just copying all the games before it that also used humans (Or Orcs, or elves, or dwarves, or evil humans, or skeletons, or zombies, or mutants, or goblins, or aliens, or dragons, or giants....you get the idea.)
You guys really should read the rest of his post. The first line was sarcasm. The very next line says he tried to keep a straight face while saying that and couldn't.Reading FTW.
My Responce wasn't to him specificly. I just chose his post cause he showed 2 pictures and Posted in Awesome Green , which makes for easy refrence.
It was more to all people who say "XXX copied xxx"...hell, all the people who feel the need to even draw comparisons between new games and old games. Either you make a totaly superficial comparison that boils down to "I like xxx better" or you come to the conclusion that there is no comparison. Anyway, this whole discussion is off topic...
So...I think Warrior Priest and the Witch hunter both stand very good chances to be the most popular classes at this point. Tho like some one else said earlier , "this will all change when the elves come out".
Most of the animations are pretty sweet.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Golly,
If you really want to hurt a journalists feelings, just let him know that you skim his writing , especially when he thinks that he wrote something colorful and witty
As for "warrior priest and Witch hunter" being the most popular. Lets not forget that witch hunter has been the most popular charachter for the past TWENTY FIVE YEARS so its not like it will really be that we can expect to see 40% of a server with trenchcoats and tophats.
FLash back to 2000 the most popular chrachter designs for daoc where Eldritch (an elven caster that was supposed to use destructive magic and weild a sword) and everyones favorite, midgards THANE! (A fighter caster in the likes of thor)
it didnt really pan out well for those 2 classes come gametime. I can tell you from playing the game though, if your a wow player your going to be totally thrown off by the game ballance. I need to post the video I took. Ever see how a mage in wow can take 4-5 good shots from a warrior before they finally kill him? Well forget about cloth casters, even medium armor users dont stand toe to toe against tanks. I have video of Hammerer 3 shoting a squigg herder. Which is pretty much the way it should be, but not how people in wow would be use to it.
Best classes as for when i played where the black orc and the iron breaker.... ESPECIALLY the ironbreaker. Weakest was (supprise) the Rune priest. Engeneer played nice and was fun and innovative, but i wouldnt consiter him a powerhouse, just fun.
your right. Thats very unfair of me to compare wow that was launched 3 years ago yet just had a current expension to update it.... to a game not even released yet. Lets be more fair to their graphics...
One of these is from world of warcraft which was made "three years ago".
THe other image is from Dark Age of camelot (the makers of WARHAMMER ONLINE) which was created in 2001 (six and a half years ago)
DAoC Released 2001
World Of Warcraft Released 2004
Warhammer Online 2007
I dont know what else I can say. I gave one of these games a 5 on graphics and some people claim it should have been much higher, like a 8 9 or 10. You put the photo against a game from 6 years ago and games comming out this year and be the judge for yourself.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setview/reviews/gameID/15/loadReview/48/from/%2Ffeatures.cfm%2Fview%2Freviews
WoW Hunter 2.0? Why the f*** it's always WoW? Why not UO Tamer/Archer 2.0?
*logs back on siege*
***And yes, WoW graphics suck hard, I've been telling that to my friends since beta. But we can't really compare Blizzard and Mythic games in terms of graphics, DAoC was a masterpiece in terms of graphics and details, back when they did the graphic revamp.
Ultima Online 98~04
Dark Age of Camelot 03~07
Final Fantasy XI 04~06
Guild Wars 05~08
World of Warcraft 04~05
Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
your right. Thats very unfair of me to compare wow that was launched 3 years ago yet just had a current expension to update it.... to a game not even released yet. Lets be more fair to their graphics...
One of these is from world of warcraft which was made "three years ago".
THe other image is from Dark Age of camelot (the makers of WARHAMMER ONLINE) which was created in 2001 (six and a half years ago)
DAoC Released 2001
World Of Warcraft Released 2004
what else I can say. I gave one of these games a 5 on graphics and some people claim it should have been much higher, like a 8 9 or 10. You put the photo against a game from 6 years ago and games comming out this year and be the judge for yourself.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setview/reviews/gameID/15/loadReview/48/from/%2Ffeatures.cfm%2Fview%2Freviews
You do know that your DAOC 2001 pics are from the Catacombs releases and beyond that updated the graphics in 2004 right? Visually DAoC of 2001 and DAoC of today (or 2004) look nothing alike. So you're actually comparing the graphic styles of games that came out at the same time, Nov 2004.
Edit: too dang big with the other pics.....If you want to see the difference here is a before and after from them
You do know that your DAOC 2001 pics are from the Catacombs releases and beyond that updated the graphics in 2004 right? Visually DAoC of 2001 and DAoC of today (or 2004) look nothing alike. So you're actually comparing the graphic styles of games that came out at the same time, Nov 2004.
Edit: too dang big with the other pics.....If you want to see the difference here is a before and after from them
Why yes I do know this and thank you for pointing it our and driving home my point double fold! I actualy typed "released" not "pictures from" because, as said in my review, and in a prior post there has been more than ample enough time and manpower to upgrade graphics especially with a 2 year in the wait expansion.thats just the first point. The other point is that a game released before or at the same time as warcraft has far superior graphics to it and is the graphical predocessor of WAR, therefore WAR cant be "copycats" of Wow.
WAR is a sweet looking game
What i am pointing out is the disinformation in your post, you stated that a game from 2001 had better graphics than WoW, which was not accurate. What you showed was a game that had undergone a graphic update at the same time that WoW came out, a game that had been out for over 3 years and had 2 retail expansions at the time. WoW has been out for 2 and has had its first retail expansion. You claim that manpower and time have been sufficient to update the graphics, when you cannot really give an example of any other game that has done such a thing. To give a lower rating on BC's graphics because YOU think they should upgrade them is a disservice to your review. An example of what you want would be EQ's first graphics update which was 2 years after it came out, (luclin) but it was 1) Its 3rd expansion and 2) bugged all to hell to start with. Which is something Blizzard wouldn't do on the scale that SOE is known for.
Another point, of the 250+ designers, programmers, artists and sound engineers blizzard has, who were split into 1. working on patches/updates/class balancing for WoW live. 2. Working on the BC expansion. 3. Working on other Blizzard future projects and tie ins. Where were they supposed to get the bodies for a graphics update as well?
The worst part of it all is I agree that the WAR will be great and that the game itself is in no way a WoW clone. I haven't played WoW in a long time and haven't even played BC but I just have to disagree with your reasoning.
This is an arguement that I have no interest in, or wish to take sides in, but I wanted to point something out. You do realize that Blizzard makes enough net profit in a month that they could fill a swimming pool with one dollar bills and treat their staff to the world's most lavish pool party, right? They's rich, yo! If they felt like it, they could easily hire a small team of artists and programmers to upgrade the graphics of the game. So it is perfectly feasable from a manpower/financial standpoint.
I just think they don't want to, yet. Most people seem to enjoy the visual style and art design of WoW. And it plays on some very archaic computer systems. It's possible that they'll upgrade sometime in the near future. And they'll not even notice the additional cost of doing it.
Seriously.
It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
This is an arguement that I have no interest in, or wish to take sides in, but I wanted to point something out. You do realize that Blizzard makes enough net profit in a month that they could fill a swimming pool with one dollar bills and treat their staff to the world's most lavish pool party, right? They's rich, yo! If they felt like it, they could easily hire a small team of artists and programmers to upgrade the graphics of the game. So it is perfectly feasable from a manpower/financial standpoint.
I just think they don't want to, yet. Most people seem to enjoy the visual style and art design of WoW. And it plays on some very archaic computer systems. It's possible that they'll upgrade sometime in the near future. And they'll not even notice the additional cost of doing it.
Of course they have the money, but finding that pool of programmers, designers etc is a time intensive process as well, given their penchant for releasing "when its ready" would also translate to "do they have the EXACT skills/traits/tendencies that we want" chances are they receive hundreds of apps each day for a single job posting, can you imagine how long it would take them to just hire that small team to upgrade the graphics? One of the things they post on their employment site is "don't give us a reason NOT to hire you".
In other words, I would rather have the graphics stay the same. Hell, why not assign whatever team you get to giving Priests more survivability or prehaps a team that makes Hunters less OP.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
The reason I used that title was because it was the most familiar version of the concept. Also, you must remember that UO is a skill based MMORPG. The fact that anyone could train anything led to a bit more diversity. Hell, I could have said EQ Necro, AO _____, EQ2 _____, etc. It was just a more popular choice.
Also, I will say this one thousand times before I'm done. I'll make it bigger this time.
WoW graphics are not "sucky". They lower the system reqs for the game and open the experience up for people with less CPU at their disposal.
I do agree that a 5 for ratings is fair. Why? Because WoW's main appeal isn't STUNNING GRAPHICAL LOLS FOR YOUR ROFFLING APPETITE!!!!! WoW's appeal is ease of gameplay and low system reqs. People don't get addicted to a game that is too choppy to play. Sure, you might be sitting pretty in your DAoC world, but there aren't many people there. See that tumbleweed? Yeah, me too.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
The reason I used that title was because it was the most familiar version of the concept. Also, you must remember that UO is a skill based MMORPG. The fact that anyone could train anything led to a bit more diversity. Hell, I could have said EQ Necro, AO _____, EQ2 _____, etc. It was just a more popular choice.
Also, I will say this one thousand times before I'm done. I'll make it bigger this time.
WoW graphics are not "sucky". They lower the system reqs for the game and open the experience up for people with less CPU at their disposal.
I do agree that a 5 for ratings is fair. Why? Because WoW's main appeal isn't STUNNING GRAPHICAL LOLS FOR YOUR ROFFLING APPETITE!!!!! WoW's appeal is ease of gameplay and low system reqs. People don't get addicted to a game that is too choppy to play. Sure, you might be sitting pretty in your DAoC world, but there aren't many people there. See that tumbleweed? Yeah, me too.
Two things
1- Notice the sarcasm next time, will ya?
2- About WoW graphics, that's like saying Tibia's graphics don't suck, that they're just that shitty so people can play it on old computers.
Nice argument btw, "I win because my game is more popular".
Ultima Online 98~04
Dark Age of Camelot 03~07
Final Fantasy XI 04~06
Guild Wars 05~08
World of Warcraft 04~05
Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
I don't get why people cry about "cartoony or terrible graphics" then they get a game thats impossible for them to handle and cry about the game being too powerful. Isn't gameplay more important and graphics should be looked at 2nd.
Darkfall for now.
Quit bashing games YOU don't like! Including WoW, you know you liked it before you got burned out.
http://live.xbox.com/member/Njai
$OE lies list
http://www.rlmmo.com/viewtopic.php?t=424&start=0
"
And I don't want to hear anything about "I don't believe in vampires" because *I* don't believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what *I* saw is ******* vampires! "
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
Gamer Profile : http://www.guildcafe.com/member/Icucme
We really shouldnt go there when talking about manpower if we are comparing mythic to Blizzard.
Ive Met mythic staff it was a rather small company.
Your comparing a company with 50 guys actually doing work in the dev/ini part of the game and 100, total
http://www.inc.com/inc500/profiles/2003/leisure.html
to blizzards massive 250 Devs/ini team with over 1600 total in the company!
http://www.blizzard.com/inblizz/profile.shtml
Just look up the value of the stocks. Theres a reason why people say blizzard is a mutli million dollar corporation... because it IS, and always will be. The huge success and mass popularity of World of Warcraft alone will keep them in the green for at least the next 10-15 years.
And the debate "we keep the graphics dull so people with low system requirements can play" the statement will not hold water because A) the system req. for daoc are lower than wow (do you really think we had pentium 4 processors in 2001? my computer was top of the line at 500Mhz) and also if there was a focus on people with lower system requirements then the game would be based around small group and solo content insted of large man instances.
The reason for the graphics is to match it to their previous games in look. But sorry, I cant give you bonus points for making your graphics dull on purpouse.