LMFAO! Did you just say the entire ground is normal mapped. I'm just gonna flat out say it. You're an idiot. The ground is farm from full normal map. It's called a "Plane" with a texture on it. You apparantly can't destinquish what from what. You've got no experience. so I don't blame you. I'm also aware different games are developed for different systems, but a game developed for midrange systems can have the exact same visual quality or better as a game developed for highrange systems. A combination of bumps, lights, and normals with good texture work can present a very visual appealing game. This also works in reverse. A highrange system game can look as poor as a lowrange system game or a low quality midrange system game. Vanguard happens to fall into this ground. Highrange system game, but low to midrange system visuals. The performance is just awful as well. Optimization wasn't even done properly. No I didn't say WOW had bad graphics. I said it had a different style of graphics. "Bad" is an opinionated view depending on how you see the game. I also know LOTRO is not designed for future technology. They never claimed it was. My whole point on that was Vanguards undying claim that it's built for the future, which it obviously isn't. The picture proved nothing. I've got no knowledge of this "Crysis" game. It was irrelevant to the conversation. I'm discussing the comparison of LOTRO and VG. Don't blame me for you trying to run the train off the track to attempt at blinding me of your ignorance. Quality > Quantity It's as simple as that. Large ass zones are not needed. You find it fun that it's a 30 minute run to a hunting spot? It was cool the first time. Wait no it wasn't. 2 zones I had to cross was purely housing. Cool... I had to make this run EVERYDAY to get back to the arena. It got boring the first time. Vanguards landmasses are basically 50% housing districts, which are completely empty aside from a few rocks here and there. Maybe a broken house. It'd have been better to use the EQ2 method for housing. Realistic? Not really, but efficient? Yes. Anyway, please do run along. Run back to your POS game with your other fanbois and live in that fantasy world of yours. I'm far from a noob btw. Shaman, 50. Played for 2 1/2 months. I've explored damn near every inch of that game. You don't wanna know how many empty towns there is. Not to mention tons that arn't empty, but the NPCs do absolutely nothing. Cya
Thank you!
"LMFAO! Did you just say the entire ground is normal mapped. I'm just gonna flat out say it. You're an idiot. The ground is farm from full normal map. It's called a "Plane" with a texture on it. You apparantly can't destinquish what from what. You've got no experience. so I don't blame you."
Maybe now it will be easier for people to see how wrong you really are.
Normal Mapping OFF:
Normal Mapping ON:
Anyone that has played Vanguard and knows what the term Normal Mapping means, would know exactly what I am talking about when I say mostly everything in Vanguard is NORMAL MAPPED.
Normal Mapping OFF:
Normal Mapping ON:
Normal Mapping OFF: ( sorry its night, look at the mountain and the stones to the right)
Normal Mapping ON: ( sorry its night, look at the mountain and the stones to the right)
Now again, im not sure whats worse - You saying that you have played Vanguard or you saying that your in the industry
Yes it's pretty, but the performance is poor, and the world itself has no soul.
Agreed.
Also being an artist. i'll nit pick. First, the textures are poor quality. Either settings are down low or they are designed as such. Next the environment is not "Alive" it feels so empty or just plain sad. The skybox is absolutely awful unless you smack on all the settings for it, but you'll drop 20fps. To many models are jagged or cube form. They need to smooth the edges. It'll only add probably 10-50 more polys onto the objects, but make them look sooo much better. The jagged edges + poor textures + poor mapping (the textures end adruptly as if they dropped of the planet on every edge) = bad graphics.
They've got a good direction, but the massive scale of the game prevents really good visuals from showing. Smaller zones with higher quality images make for much more enjoyable game play. Honestly, we as players don't need 5 million miles of land to navigate. It's to much content to fill and the quality has to be dubbed down.
Quality > Quantity
Textures are poor? Name one mmo, other then eq2 that has higher.
How is the enviroment not alive? animales walk the land, trees sway - its amazing
The skybox is awful??? DID YOU SEE MY SCREENS???
My screens are not jaggie, I am running the game at 1680 X 1050
A huge part of Vanguard is exploration, like I said its one of the few mmo's that really pulls it off. I for one am sick of the small cramped zones in many games *cough lotr* Here is a pic of a vista in LOTR running on higher then high settings. The only difference here is you cant get to anything you see past the water - its a zone wall. That sky ontop is pretty much a static image that rotates around you ( no real clouds).
Ladies and gentlemen this is a perfect example of people just bashing Vanguard for the sake of it.
Why dont you zoom in on the rock to your left then we'll talk textures
Hmmm considering you could play LOTR on a mid range pc at MAX DETAIL should say something about the graphical quality.
Yeah it means LotRO was greatly optimised and coded extremely well by the developers on a familiar engine, they managed to scale down the graphical setting ranges well enough to make the game look quite remarkable even on average settings.
Unfortunately the same can't be said for VG, whoms graphics I personally enjoyed but didn't look half as good compared to LotRO when you compared them both on average settings. The water effects were dull, the textures were poor etc.
Both games look remarkable on their highest settings however, but try and run LotRO's high resolution textures on a mid-range PC than tell me your game runs fine with no graphical lag what-so-ever. It will have some lag but not a substantial amount where-as VG would just CTD or run like a slideshow.
It just means the game was optimised better for different machines and coded by developers who had a better sense of direction and experiance.
EDIT: With that said, on with the screenies!
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
Hmmm considering you could play LOTR on a mid range pc at MAX DETAIL should say something about the graphical quality.
Yeah it means LotRO was greatly optimised and coded extremely well by the developers on a familiar engine, they managed to scale down the graphical setting ranges well enough to make the game look quite remarkable even on average settings.
Unfortunately the same can't be said for VG, whoms graphics I personally enjoyed but didn't look half as good compared to LotRO when you compared them both on average settings. The water effects were dull, the textures were poor etc.
Both games look remarkable on their highest settings however, but try and run LotRO's high resolution textures on a mid-range PC than tell me your game runs fine with no graphical lag what-so-ever. It will have some lag but not a substantial amount where-as VG would just CTD or run like a slideshow.
It just means the game was optimised better for different machines and coded by developers who had a better sense of direction and experiance.
Thanks for adding in.
Your right, the Turbine 2.0 engine is very flexiable! I can not argue with you over that. Does Vanguard run poorly on most system due to bad coding, of course. But the main point remains.
WOW for example was created to work on majority of systems - that was there target. You can run the game on high and it looks good and you can run it on med and it looks good.
EQ2 has a totaly different look and was created to work on higher end machines, the devs targeted that when they were creating it. it requires a MUCH more system power to run due to the speical effects it has.
Thanks for adding in. Your right, the Turbine 2.0 engine is very flexiable! I can not argue with you over that. Does Vanguard run poorly on most system due to bad coding, of course. But the main point remains. WOW for example was created to work on majority of systems - that was there target. You can run the game on high and it looks good and you can run it on med and it looks good. EQ2 has a totaly different look and was created to work on higher end machines, the devs targeted that when they were creating it. it requires a MUCH more system power to run due to the speical effects it has. Its a simple concept.
I agree with you, games are usually made with a clear target/direction in mind (with VG targeting higher-end machines) and just to be more clear I wasn't blaming it entirely on poor coding. I forgot to mention the fact that the game is essentially seamless and the character models are far more detailed in VG, which would certainly hinder the performance and limit the ability to scale the performance I would imagine. Thanks for understanding and not seeing my post as some sort of flame/troll/fanboi attempt btw.
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
I feel compelled to join in this argument. I find it rediculous someone thinks they are an expert just because they've played so many games. Its like life - doesn't matter how many years you've lived or how many cities you've lived in - if you can't comprehend and recognize (learn) anything from it, its still....
... well, much like Vanguard. Hollow. Souless.
I'm a 'WoW' fanboy. A DAoC fanboy. And a LotR:O fanboy. Each of those games are beautiful in their own ways. I'll be a fanboy of many games to come. But none of that fanboyness means anything in the face of art and overall quality.
I tried REALLY hard to get into Vanguard. In the end, I realize I may as well just play EQ2. Unfortunately, Vanguard and EQ2 suffer some similar problems. Yet at LEAST EQ2 has some soul. Bad textures don't help either game. I swear, it feels like someone just grabbed Quake 2 maps, stretched them out to about 200 times their normal size, and then wasted months of production time creating 'intricate bump maps' to try and make it look 'real'. Sorry... bump maps do NOT come before textures.
Who has nice textures? DAoC, LotRO, Lineage 2. - I'm not saying they are good games - that's up for another debate. And while you may not be a fan of DAoC's or LotR:O's character models, environmentally the textures and the atmosphere are top notch - even if DAoC is old as dirt now. Of course, I can see Vanguard as being pretty, but it still feels hollow and souless, it doesn't 'look real', and personally it reminds me of the dawn of 3D online gaming.
You can't just make a mountain and expect a few random trees, the same grass template, and a different color version of the same bland ground texture - to bring that mountain to life. Just as you can't expect bump mapping and "super duper pixel shaded models" to make a game 'next gen'. I can't help but wonder if Vanguard will have the same problem as EQ2. "SUPER CUTTING EDGE NEXT GEN MMO! - Pardon us if the engine isn't flexible, and we have to use the same armor models for the next decade."
*yawn* well that was a nice night of sleep.. ok back to arguing I guess sense you insist upon it.
I didn't say the game didn't have normal maps, because it does. I'm aware of that. The 90% was a ballpark estimate. An exact number would probably be 20%, maybe 30%, s normal mapped. As I've said i've played through this entire game and seen all that it has to offer. There isn't very many normals.
The arguement was the ground was full normal mapped, which it isn't. It simply has 2, maybe 3, texture stages. You can adjust this quality of texture in options.
I waasn't even bashing the game either untill you continued to insist that I was. I was simply stating the art in vanguard is not as visually appealing as one would think. VG graphics just don't compared to other games out in the market. Even EQ2 has more finely tuned graphics and with a game that had 30mil budget, that shouldn't be the case.
VG's gameplay is fine depending on what you're looking for. It's not for everybody and I admit that. I dislike the gameplay, but as I just said. I was strictly targeting the art. Yet you continue to say i'm a hater. I don't hate the game. It's just not for me. What I do dislike is the art. It's absolutely awful.
The textures appear stretched and poor quality. You can't apply a mapping and say it's a good texture. That's not what makes a good texture. Good experience and long hours in photoshop with someone that knows wtf their doing makes a good texture. Traveling the world with a digital camera photographing everything your eyes make contact with makes good textures. Someone that can paint on any surface at any time makes good textures. It's called a good artist. Something Vanguard needs desperately.
As I explained though. Due to Vanguards massive nature. The graphics will ---NEVER--- compare to a smaller game such as LOTRO. It technically is IMPOSSIBLE. You think VGs performance is bad now? Wait till, IF ,high quality textures are added.
To be honest some of the art in Vanguard looks as if it went back in time a couple years. While some is more up to date. I admit there is some nice peices of art in the game, but VERY FEW.
Anyway, you're just an annoying vanboi as I suspected. Just go play your failing game *shrug* CYA i'm done. Go get some experience then we'll talk again. You need to do things outside of gaming on that PC to do as such.. just a tip.
Comments
Thank you!
"LMFAO! Did you just say the entire ground is normal mapped. I'm just gonna flat out say it. You're an idiot. The ground is farm from full normal map. It's called a "Plane" with a texture on it. You apparantly can't destinquish what from what. You've got no experience. so I don't blame you."
Maybe now it will be easier for people to see how wrong you really are.
Normal Mapping OFF:
Normal Mapping ON:
Anyone that has played Vanguard and knows what the term Normal Mapping means, would know exactly what I am talking about when I say mostly everything in Vanguard is NORMAL MAPPED.
Normal Mapping OFF:
Normal Mapping ON:
Normal Mapping OFF: ( sorry its night, look at the mountain and the stones to the right)
Normal Mapping ON: ( sorry its night, look at the mountain and the stones to the right)
Now again, im not sure whats worse - You saying that you have played Vanguard or you saying that your in the industry
------------------------------
Check out some of the mmo's I have played:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/129987/page/1
PC STATS:
- Q9550
- Evga GTX 280 SSC x2 (SLI)
- 8GB DDR3
- Nforce 790i Ultra
Agreed.
Also being an artist. i'll nit pick. First, the textures are poor quality. Either settings are down low or they are designed as such. Next the environment is not "Alive" it feels so empty or just plain sad. The skybox is absolutely awful unless you smack on all the settings for it, but you'll drop 20fps. To many models are jagged or cube form. They need to smooth the edges. It'll only add probably 10-50 more polys onto the objects, but make them look sooo much better. The jagged edges + poor textures + poor mapping (the textures end adruptly as if they dropped of the planet on every edge) = bad graphics.
They've got a good direction, but the massive scale of the game prevents really good visuals from showing. Smaller zones with higher quality images make for much more enjoyable game play. Honestly, we as players don't need 5 million miles of land to navigate. It's to much content to fill and the quality has to be dubbed down.
Quality > Quantity
Textures are poor? Name one mmo, other then eq2 that has higher.
How is the enviroment not alive? animales walk the land, trees sway - its amazing
The skybox is awful??? DID YOU SEE MY SCREENS???
My screens are not jaggie, I am running the game at 1680 X 1050
A huge part of Vanguard is exploration, like I said its one of the few mmo's that really pulls it off. I for one am sick of the small cramped zones in many games *cough lotr* Here is a pic of a vista in LOTR running on higher then high settings. The only difference here is you cant get to anything you see past the water - its a zone wall. That sky ontop is pretty much a static image that rotates around you ( no real clouds).
Ladies and gentlemen this is a perfect example of people just bashing Vanguard for the sake of it.
Why dont you zoom in on the rock to your left then we'll talk textures
------------------------------
Check out some of the mmo's I have played:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/129987/page/1
PC STATS:
- Q9550
- Evga GTX 280 SSC x2 (SLI)
- 8GB DDR3
- Nforce 790i Ultra
Unfortunately the same can't be said for VG, whoms graphics I personally enjoyed but didn't look half as good compared to LotRO when you compared them both on average settings. The water effects were dull, the textures were poor etc.
Both games look remarkable on their highest settings however, but try and run LotRO's high resolution textures on a mid-range PC than tell me your game runs fine with no graphical lag what-so-ever. It will have some lag but not a substantial amount where-as VG would just CTD or run like a slideshow.
It just means the game was optimised better for different machines and coded by developers who had a better sense of direction and experiance.
EDIT: With that said, on with the screenies!
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs
Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW
Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
Unfortunately the same can't be said for VG, whoms graphics I personally enjoyed but didn't look half as good compared to LotRO when you compared them both on average settings. The water effects were dull, the textures were poor etc.
Both games look remarkable on their highest settings however, but try and run LotRO's high resolution textures on a mid-range PC than tell me your game runs fine with no graphical lag what-so-ever. It will have some lag but not a substantial amount where-as VG would just CTD or run like a slideshow.
It just means the game was optimised better for different machines and coded by developers who had a better sense of direction and experiance.
Thanks for adding in.
Your right, the Turbine 2.0 engine is very flexiable! I can not argue with you over that. Does Vanguard run poorly on most system due to bad coding, of course. But the main point remains.
WOW for example was created to work on majority of systems - that was there target. You can run the game on high and it looks good and you can run it on med and it looks good.
EQ2 has a totaly different look and was created to work on higher end machines, the devs targeted that when they were creating it. it requires a MUCH more system power to run due to the speical effects it has.
Its a simple concept.
------------------------------
Check out some of the mmo's I have played:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/129987/page/1
PC STATS:
- Q9550
- Evga GTX 280 SSC x2 (SLI)
- 8GB DDR3
- Nforce 790i Ultra
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs
Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW
Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
I feel compelled to join in this argument. I find it rediculous someone thinks they are an expert just because they've played so many games. Its like life - doesn't matter how many years you've lived or how many cities you've lived in - if you can't comprehend and recognize (learn) anything from it, its still....
... well, much like Vanguard. Hollow. Souless.
I'm a 'WoW' fanboy. A DAoC fanboy. And a LotR:O fanboy. Each of those games are beautiful in their own ways. I'll be a fanboy of many games to come. But none of that fanboyness means anything in the face of art and overall quality.
I tried REALLY hard to get into Vanguard. In the end, I realize I may as well just play EQ2. Unfortunately, Vanguard and EQ2 suffer some similar problems. Yet at LEAST EQ2 has some soul. Bad textures don't help either game. I swear, it feels like someone just grabbed Quake 2 maps, stretched them out to about 200 times their normal size, and then wasted months of production time creating 'intricate bump maps' to try and make it look 'real'. Sorry... bump maps do NOT come before textures.
Who has nice textures? DAoC, LotRO, Lineage 2. - I'm not saying they are good games - that's up for another debate. And while you may not be a fan of DAoC's or LotR:O's character models, environmentally the textures and the atmosphere are top notch - even if DAoC is old as dirt now. Of course, I can see Vanguard as being pretty, but it still feels hollow and souless, it doesn't 'look real', and personally it reminds me of the dawn of 3D online gaming.
You can't just make a mountain and expect a few random trees, the same grass template, and a different color version of the same bland ground texture - to bring that mountain to life. Just as you can't expect bump mapping and "super duper pixel shaded models" to make a game 'next gen'. I can't help but wonder if Vanguard will have the same problem as EQ2. "SUPER CUTTING EDGE NEXT GEN MMO! - Pardon us if the engine isn't flexible, and we have to use the same armor models for the next decade."
*yawn* well that was a nice night of sleep.. ok back to arguing I guess sense you insist upon it.
I didn't say the game didn't have normal maps, because it does. I'm aware of that. The 90% was a ballpark estimate. An exact number would probably be 20%, maybe 30%, s normal mapped. As I've said i've played through this entire game and seen all that it has to offer. There isn't very many normals.
The arguement was the ground was full normal mapped, which it isn't. It simply has 2, maybe 3, texture stages. You can adjust this quality of texture in options.
I waasn't even bashing the game either untill you continued to insist that I was. I was simply stating the art in vanguard is not as visually appealing as one would think. VG graphics just don't compared to other games out in the market. Even EQ2 has more finely tuned graphics and with a game that had 30mil budget, that shouldn't be the case.
VG's gameplay is fine depending on what you're looking for. It's not for everybody and I admit that. I dislike the gameplay, but as I just said. I was strictly targeting the art. Yet you continue to say i'm a hater. I don't hate the game. It's just not for me. What I do dislike is the art. It's absolutely awful.
The textures appear stretched and poor quality. You can't apply a mapping and say it's a good texture. That's not what makes a good texture. Good experience and long hours in photoshop with someone that knows wtf their doing makes a good texture. Traveling the world with a digital camera photographing everything your eyes make contact with makes good textures. Someone that can paint on any surface at any time makes good textures. It's called a good artist. Something Vanguard needs desperately.
As I explained though. Due to Vanguards massive nature. The graphics will ---NEVER--- compare to a smaller game such as LOTRO. It technically is IMPOSSIBLE. You think VGs performance is bad now? Wait till, IF ,high quality textures are added.
To be honest some of the art in Vanguard looks as if it went back in time a couple years. While some is more up to date. I admit there is some nice peices of art in the game, but VERY FEW.
Anyway, you're just an annoying vanboi as I suspected. Just go play your failing game *shrug* CYA i'm done. Go get some experience then we'll talk again. You need to do things outside of gaming on that PC to do as such.. just a tip.