I was sitting here playing WoW tonight when my 13 year old son walked in. He came up to the monitor and said, "what are you playing? The graphics suck." Maybe we've been spoiled with Xbox360 / PS3 Graphics and games like Crysis and COD4. There's no doubt that the bar has raised and WoW is starting to show it's age. There's nothing wrong with WoW's style, but the graphics themselves are blocky and not really all that great up close. They're not terrible, but they're a long way from meeting today's standards.
Quick someone call child services because this guy has obviously had his 13 year old chained in the basement for the last 3 years!!! LOL
How in the world did your 13 yr old NOT know what WoW was? He must have at least seen a commercial, an advertisement, talked to someone at school about the game. Something. I have a 6 year old grandson that knows what WoW is or at least when he see the commercial on TV he knows it's the game that Paw Paw plays.
Even so i am sure most people have noticed games are delivered with user friendly sliders that can control the depth of graphics a user can handle.So a developer has nothing to lose by setting a very high standard and just allowing the user to turn things down as needed,like shadows and shaders and view distance or decals or detailed lighting effects.
I disagree. You do risk something by putting out a game that has very high end graphics and giving users the ability to turn down the graphics options to the lowest settings to get acceptable gameplay. I expect to be able to play the game with the default graphics settings and I will complain when I can't and have to turn it down to the lowest settings. I feel like the money I spent on the game was wasted because my PC can't handle the graphics. I expect reasonable performance with the graphics options set to the default settings and I think most people are like that. That doesn't mean that you should cater to the lowest common denominator, but I think the best option is to go for the middle ground somewhere between great graphics and responsive gameplay. That way people who have the high end systems can turn it up for better graphics (not the best but better) and those with low end systems can turn it down for better performance. Someone with a middle of the road PC expects middle of the road performance from middle of the road graphics settings and going for the high end graphics does not usually allow for that.
First of all, I hate WoW fundamentally. It is basically an item collecting game, and once you have the best stuff you are done. The game is almost flawless though. If you like this time of game, WoW is the king. Now, onto the graphics. I don't understand why everyone thinks they suck so much. Yes, the style is a bit cartoony, but the graphics don't suck at all. Simply walk into Stormwind and look around. There are so many objects and so much detail in the world that it makes others games look shameful. Most other MMOs have land, sky and then randomly dispersed buildings that stick out like a sore thumb. Everything in WoW fits into the world. Most people DON'T notice all of the detail because the environment is so immersive. Hating the style of the game is one thing, but to deduce that the graphics suck from that is completely incorrect.
Because they're low-rez cartoony graphics. Many players want a more 'real' looking world than what WoW provides. While anime is fun and all I personally detest it in my video games. Hated zelda because it was so anime' looking on our Wii, in fact.
And if you don't believe the low rez statement get in close to the graphics and look how they pixelate when you get close in on them. That's by design, of course, so that the game can handle the number of players in any given area better. But the bottom line is that the graphics are cartoony and kind of low resolution after all is said and done. Which, to a lot of folks, is a double negative. Personally I could care less about how low rez they are as long as t hey're appealing... but they aren't appealing to me because I HATE cartoony games.
"A ship-of-war is the best ambassador." - Oliver Cromwell
To be honest, the graphics are horrid and incredibly outdated. I don't like the models because the male looks way to bulky and females looks just.. wrong >_>
One of the big reasons why i don't play it is because of such a huge and popular game, the graphics are really a sad view of it. It would be much better if they had a revamp of the models so you could atleast get a "normal" shaped toon that doesn't have 100kg muscles and still thin as a stick.
Just my two cents.
The speed of the mole and the power of steel is my weapon
Example: the level of detail of a character and the level of detail of an item, or a landscape, or a building, or a room, are all the same. Of course it would be great if the virtual world looked completely real, but the masses do not have rigs that can do that yet. Instead, blizz went for a vibrant, artsy, varied world that was sort of like a cartoon. But it's consistent throughout.
Contrast it with something like EQ2 that came out at the same time. They went for a realism, but they failed, because the level of detail of a character (which was very high btw) did not compare with the detail of the landscape or some big wall in a town. You have this immensely detailed control over a toon's face (cheekbones, eyes etc.) but then run around in this town that has a wall that is a huge flat polygon with a texture slapped on it. And ALL the walls in the town are like that. Where are the imperfections that make things look real? not there. engines can't handle it. Oblivion is about the best that can be done so far, but that came out a little later I think.
And modelling has to fit in here somewhere. Comparing WoW with EQ2 again (since they came out at the same time) ... EQ2 would have areas where you can run along an edge of two large polygons... something that never exists in nature... hence does not fit with making a realistic world. WoW however had a very good vertically-interesting model of terrain, rolling hills, etc. Seldom if ever would I be running along and go 'ick... i'm running 100 yards on a polygon edge' etc.
There again, constistent. WoW was well modelled, constistent detail. The games that have gone for realism have either failed on the consistency test (eq2) or tried to do it all and failed because the hardware to run it is not prevalent (vanguard).
My take on it is: WoW graphics are like the Wii. They aren't great but the gameplay makes up for it. They are bad but very stylized, and that is their strong point.
WoW's graphics engine may be old and outdated compared to newer games but Blizzard makes it work. Some zones can be pretty bland and tiresome but there are many that look great. Even after 2 years of WoW I was incredibly impressed of the blood elf starter zone.
bahamut1: I'm right. Your argument is too weak for rebuttal.
Dude, there is graffitti on the walls, notes carved into trees, gash marks on walls from battle, and even trails left on floors and the ground by past happenings. The attention to detail in EQ2 surpasses that of WoW. Even the "wall with no purpose" in Qeynos is in exact detail stone by stone of the original wall from EQ1 in perfect scale.
Your argument was too ludicrous to deserve a rebuttal. You were just plain wrong.
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
bahamut1: I'm right. Your argument is too weak for rebuttal.
Dude, there is graffitti on the walls, notes carved into trees, gash marks on walls from battle, and even trails left on floors and the ground by past happenings. The attention to detail in EQ2 surpasses that of WoW. Even the "wall with no purpose" in Qeynos is in exact detail stone by stone of the original wall from EQ1 in perfect scale.
Your argument was too ludicrous to deserve a rebuttal. You were just plain wrong.
hehe... ok. I said several things, so I didn't know what you were even disagreeing with...
EQ2. I played it for 1+ years and enjoyed it... good game. But the graphics and detail WERE inconsistent. I could also be a smart ass and say your argument doesn't deserve a rebuttal, but I'm not a smart ass, so I will rebut...
If we are going to argue about art, we need something in front of us to talk about. I propose that we use and refer to different screenshots on this site. When I use the notation oss.3.4.1, I am referring to official screen shot (oss), tab 3, row 4, column 1. etc. (uss = user screen shot). So get another browser tab open and check out these screen shots on this site (mmorpg.com) for examples:
oss.4.4.1 - ok. I see big flat wall with a texture on it. I've made maps in my day, and this is about as dull and simple as you can get. graffiti? a rock bulging out of place somewhere? maybe a few rocks of a different size? Maybe a rock or two of different colors even? nada...A texture slapped on a polygon.
oss.2.3.1 - just check out that mountain range. I've hiked around in real mountains for years, and I've never seen a mountain with such straight edges, and sharp corners where the 'polygons' meet. (oh... sorry, was supposed to feel realistic right?).
oss.5.4.1 - check out the ground. One big giant FLAT polygon with a texture on it. What's realistic about that?
oss.12.1.3 - Check out that slope from the bottom right corner up to the middle. It's so straight, you could lay a ruler down and trace that landscape and you would have a hard time making a line that straight. It's the junction of two polygons, as they built their world with little detail.
uss.11.1.1 (and 2). For some high detail, check out that armor.... every freaking link of chain mail can be seen... with a backdrop that is bland and single textured over a wide area? The armor and characters were immensely detailed, the world was not. It was watching HDTV characters running around in a regular tv signal world.
Anyway, I could go on. My initial argument was not that there was zero detail, there is, in some places. But it's not EVERYWHERE, hence it's not consistent, and this lack of consistency detracts from immersion (for me). By being simplistic and cartoony, WoW was able to make a game with the same level of detail in both the characters, the items laying around, the trees, the landscape, etc.
Some people notice small details and cherish them, as you do with the graffiti on the walls, (something I never noticed after playing over a year). That's ok, doesn't make you wrong or anything... just different. I am bugged by inconsistency more than others, doesn't make me wrong either. We are talking about art here; not math.
bahamut1: I'm right. Your argument is too weak for rebuttal.
Dude, there is graffitti on the walls, notes carved into trees, gash marks on walls from battle, and even trails left on floors and the ground by past happenings. The attention to detail in EQ2 surpasses that of WoW. Even the "wall with no purpose" in Qeynos is in exact detail stone by stone of the original wall from EQ1 in perfect scale.
Your argument was too ludicrous to deserve a rebuttal. You were just plain wrong.
hehe... ok. I said several things, so I didn't know what you were even disagreeing with...
EQ2. I played it for 1+ years and enjoyed it... good game. But the graphics and detail WERE inconsistent. I could also be a smart ass and say your argument doesn't deserve a rebuttal, but I'm not a smart ass, so I will rebut...
If we are going to argue about art, we need something in front of us to talk about. I propose that we use and refer to different screenshots on this site. When I use the notation oss.3.4.1, I am referring to official screen shot (oss), tab 3, row 4, column 1. etc. (uss = user screen shot). So get another browser tab open and check out these screen shots on this site (mmorpg.com) for examples:
oss.4.4.1 - ok. I see big flat wall with a texture on it. I've made maps in my day, and this is about as dull and simple as you can get. graffiti? a rock bulging out of place somewhere? maybe a few rocks of a different size? Maybe a rock or two of different colors even? nada...A texture slapped on a polygon.
oss.2.3.1 - just check out that mountain range. I've hiked around in real mountains for years, and I've never seen a mountain with such straight edges, and sharp corners where the 'polygons' meet. (oh... sorry, was supposed to feel realistic right?).
oss.5.4.1 - check out the ground. One big giant FLAT polygon with a texture on it. What's realistic about that?
oss.12.1.3 - Check out that slope from the bottom right corner up to the middle. It's so straight, you could lay a ruler down and trace that landscape and you would have a hard time making a line that straight. It's the junction of two polygons, as they built their world with little detail.
uss.11.1.1 (and 2). For some high detail, check out that armor.... every freaking link of chain mail can be seen... with a backdrop that is bland and single textured over a wide area? The armor and characters were immensely detailed, the world was not. It was watching HDTV characters running around in a regular tv signal world.
Anyway, I could go on. My initial argument was not that there was zero detail, there is, in some places. But it's not EVERYWHERE, hence it's not consistent, and this lack of consistency detracts from immersion (for me). By being simplistic and cartoony, WoW was able to make a game with the same level of detail in both the characters, the items laying around, the trees, the landscape, etc.
Some people notice small details and cherish them, as you do with the graffiti on the walls, (something I never noticed after playing over a year). That's ok, doesn't make you wrong or anything... just different. I am bugged by inconsistency more than others, doesn't make me wrong either. We are talking about art here; not math.
Airhead;
There are many different ways to adjust the graphics in EQ2, more techy stuff than I've seen in any game. I play it myself in a way where character graphics are upped more than world textures simply for performance reasons. Perhaps your settings don't take advantage of EQ2's highest resolutions. How many games have bump mapping to give every brick highlights and shadow. How many games don't even recommend turning on high rez textures unless you have 512MB of video ram. No game will ever have a wall texture spread over a huge polygon seem as detailed as the same resolution texture squished on to a small portion of armor. Walls look okay to me tho.
Sry if this is now offtopic, but you can't knock EQ2 graphics. They are the most realistic out there.
To get back to the point of this thread:
Wow has some very artistic graphics and obviously very talented graphic artists, probably more so than the guys at SOE that are looking to mimic real life. After all, mimicing a real wall takes less art and more power. I do believe games should push the limits of technology for immersion sake. Blizzard didn't care about that though and people that expect that new technology should exceed the limitations of old technology get annoyed by that. And, its like when gramps buy a new high definition television so he can plug in his VCR and watch I Love Lucy reruns. It just annoys some people. I don't hate Wow for their disregard towards advances in video card technology, but its a factor in why I decide to not play it. Many of us respect the desire to produce a cutting edge product whatever it is, Blizzard did the opposite in terms of graphics. But they did put out a very pretty vase that gramps would love.
hehe... ok. I said several things, so I didn't know what you were even disagreeing with... EQ2. I played it for 1+ years and enjoyed it... good game. But the graphics and detail WERE inconsistent. I could also be a smart ass and say your argument doesn't deserve a rebuttal, but I'm not a smart ass, so I will rebut... Big mistake... I highly doubt you played this game hardly at all, if ever, but I realize some people are blind to some things, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If we are going to argue about art, we need something in front of us to talk about. I propose that we use and refer to different screenshots on this site. When I use the notation oss.3.4.1, I am referring to official screen shot (oss), tab 3, row 4, column 1. etc. (uss = user screen shot). So get another browser tab open and check out these screen shots on this site (mmorpg.com) for examples: Hey, that's a great idea. Let's use 2 dimension LOW res screenshots to try to make a point about graphical detail in a 3 dimensional game. If you would have just read this paragraph, thought about it for like 10 seconds, you would've stopped right here. You're going to try to base your entire argument from this... oss.4.4.1 - ok. I see big flat wall with a texture on it. I've made maps in my day, and this is about as dull and simple as you can get. graffiti? a rock bulging out of place somewhere? maybe a few rocks of a different size? Maybe a rock or two of different colors even? nada...A texture slapped on a polygon. Haha. Ok, this is where I went, "Huh?". You "claimed" to have played this game? This is a screenshot of the inside wall of the patio of an apartment... for players. This was obviously intentional as you "should" know that all the housing of certain roomed apartments are identical. Also, people are going to decorate their houses with wall hangings, furniture, trophies, and etc. So it would be a complete waste of time to make these walls any more "interesting" than they already are. What does WoW do with their housing... Oh wait, they don't have any... Here's the walls of Qeynos, just for fun: http://members.cox.net/seijakuri/qeynoswall.jpg http://members.cox.net/seijakuri/qeynoswall2.jpg http://members.cox.net/seijakuri/qeynoswall3.jpg http://members.cox.net/seijakuri/qeynoswall4.jpg Different colors, different coverings (you can even make out the individual vines and leaves), and graffitti, and even a hole blown through the wall. If you even knew anything about EQ2 and it's lore, again, very suspect, you'ld even know who made that hole and who's etchings are on that wall. But you played, so you know all that, right? Right... oss.2.3.1 - just check out that mountain range. I've hiked around in real mountains for years, and I've never seen a mountain with such straight edges, and sharp corners where the 'polygons' meet. (oh... sorry, was supposed to feel realistic right?). This one is my favorite. I got quite a good laugh outta this. Here's your supposed "mountain range". LOL, I'm sorry, I can't even write that without laughing... http://members.cox.net/seijakuri/timorousdeep.jpg As you notice the tree off her right shoulder is the same size, and same distance, as the "mountainous" peak to her left. Yes, I'm sure you've climbed mountains as big as trees. Here's a couple different views of your "mountain". http://members.cox.net/tumahab/timorousdeep2.jpg http://members.cox.net/tumahab/timorousdeep3.jpg It's just a rock, that's it. Mountain indeed. Oh, and just in case you think the thing off her far right is a mountain... http://members.cox.net/tumahab/luclinshard.jpg And just in case you try to bring up imperfections because of the mist, it is intentional as well, as it is part of the lore. As you can see behind me, there is no mist. http://members.cox.net/tumahab/lookmanomist.jpg But you already knew that because you "played" the game and know that this is actually a piece of Luclin that was cut from the moon and landed here. You would know that bit of lore and the mystery that surrounds this hunk of rock. oss.5.4.1 - check out the ground. One big giant FLAT polygon with a texture on it. What's realistic about that? http://members.cox.net/tumahab/bridge.jpg Now I do have to give you a little credit here as I know everyone that plays the game is highly interested in how the well traveled bridge/road in their cities look (that was sarcasm btw). The stones are textured and the routes are depressed just like any well kept main road. In fact, just like pretty much any game with civilized roads. In fact, it's not nearly as interesting as this truly fascinating piece of ground here: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/gameId/15/setView/screens/display/5902 (Again, sarcasm, just in case you missed it. Not making any assumptions after your brilliant post) It does let me post a couple things you miss in the screenshot. I took the liberty of taking those screens shots: http://members.cox.net/tumahab/bridge2.jpg http://members.cox.net/tumahab/bridge3.jpg Notice the ridges and the routes for the flow of water when it rains. Actual working drains set into the routes to give more realism. Attention to details. The bricks laid in to give more strength to where the bridge meets the road. oss.12.1.3 - Check out that slope from the bottom right corner up to the middle. It's so straight, you could lay a ruler down and trace that landscape and you would have a hard time making a line that straight. It's the junction of two polygons, as they built their world with little detail. This is the strongest of your arguments as it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine too. Here's my screenshot: http://members.cox.net/tumahab/sinkingsands.jpg The only problem is you picked the wrong screenshot to critique, and as you can see in another angle, it is not a straight line at all. http://members.cox.net/tumahab/sinkingsandstrue.jpg You could make any curved line a straight line at the right angle. I could pull straight lines out of game graphics all day long if I angled it just right. uss.11.1.1 (and 2). For some high detail, check out that armor.... every freaking link of chain mail can be seen... with a backdrop that is bland and single textured over a wide area? The armor and characters were immensely detailed, the world was not. It was watching HDTV characters running around in a regular tv signal world. While the screenshot in question is really not in what I would call a "screenshotable" place, as every game has places that are more interesting than others, obviously, you have to realize that the graphic settings in your options menu allows you to adjust the graphical detail of every distance imaginable in the game. Unless someone knew how to take good screenshots and adjust the detail distance, their screenshots are going to look like crap, or partial crap. You can't blame the game for the player's ignorance. I tried to make it look better, but like I said, not the best place for a screenshot. There are tons of better places even in this zone. http://members.cox.net/tumahab/antonica.jpg Do notice, however, the water is the best in any game I've played, RoK especially, and the trees are not regurgitated, like in LotRO, or annoying like in WoW. They look like trees, and they are unique, and... well, look like trees. Each branch and leaf sways in the wind, and make you feel like you're in a real world. LotRO uses the exact same model for EVERY tree and their landscapes are pitiful. WoW's trees are unique, but they don't look like trees. WoW gets credit though for the trees fitting into the game as it's cartoony anyways. And there is nothing wrong with that. Anyway, I could go on. My initial argument was not that there was zero detail, there is, in some places. But it's not EVERYWHERE, hence it's not consistent, and this lack of consistency detracts from immersion (for me). By being simplistic and cartoony, WoW was able to make a game with the same level of detail in both the characters, the items laying around, the trees, the landscape, etc. Well, you're still wrong... Although WoW is consistent. Just consistently bad. Yes the characters are bad, but they are consistent in that the world is just as bad. Some people notice small details and cherish them, as you do with the graffiti on the walls, (something I never noticed after playing over a year). That's ok, doesn't make you wrong or anything... just different. I am bugged by inconsistency more than others, doesn't make me wrong either. We are talking about art here; not math. Something you didn't notice because you didn't play? I'm not wrong, I just proved it. There is great detail everywhere in EQ2. You claim all these truths, but then back down and say, well, it's just an opinion. At least stick up for what you claim. I was nice enough to just say, you're wrong, and leave it at that. You comment on 2 dimensional low res screenshots of a game, and make accusations, fact or not, and I'm gonna tell you that your claims were incorrect, simple as that. Now I want my 3 hours of life back to go right back to my original post that only took a couple minutes to write.
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
If we are going to argue about art, we need something in front of us to talk about. I propose that we use and refer to different screenshots on this site. When I use the notation oss.3.4.1, I am referring to official screen shot (oss), tab 3, row 4, column 1. etc. (uss = user screen shot). So get another browser tab open and check out these screen shots on this site (mmorpg.com) for examples: Hey, that's a great idea. Let's use 2 dimension LOW res screenshots to try to make a point about graphical detail in a 3 dimensional game. If you would have just read this paragraph, thought about it for like 10 seconds, you would've stopped right here. You're going to try to base your entire argument from this...
Aha. Ahahahaha. Haaahahahaha! No, wait. Ahahahahahahaahhhhhaaaaa!
You aren't seriously saying that screenshots are a bad way to judge a game's graphics are you? Because the game is 3D and screenshots are 2D? Bwuhahahahaha!
Man, you should be a comedian. Oh, in case you haven't worked out why this is so funny.... 3D games are not viewed in 3D. They are projected onto a 2D surface (ie your screen). Looking at a screenshot and looking at the game on your screen are almost the same thing. Except you don't see movement.
quite simply cant enjoy the cartoony feel, i like nitty gritty realistic...i dont wanna sit down to a game that feels like it belongs on a kids cartoon channel.
After playing Lineage 2 and Eve Online for a couple of years it is unsuprising that I almost fell off my chair laughing when I saw WoWs graphics. They really do suck compared to Lineage 2. Lineage 2 is beautiful in comparison but it feels kind of flat and less immersive than WoW, I do agree there is a lot of attention to details but imo the art is poor compared to Lineage 2 and the low res textures are nasty. then again compared to say EQ2 which has high system requirements and looks like shit it isn't that bad.
Just to explain what I mean about EQ2, because I know there are a lot of EQ2 fans, technically the graphics are good but the actual art work is horrible. No style at all, it just looks damn ugly.
I like the cartoony graphics. Reminds me of Warcraft games. As for realitic graphic games like EQ2 and such....to me these work so hard to try to make an unreal thing real that they create something that is lifeless and has not sense of style. They can have all the pretty skies they want, but I want something that is fun not life like.
That's because WoW's graphics don't suck... the people who complain they are are hardcore gaming nerds who dont even represent normal people. They're like computer guys who complain that 192kbps mp3s are bad quality and they need 30924783573 kbps ogg files instead.
Also, WoW's graphics are good considering they run on integrated graphics, which is a HUGE boon for WoW. Virtually any average laptop from the past 2 years can run WoW. That expands the user base big time.
I heard someone talk about WoW's graphics being "outdated." What about, say paintings from ancient times, those aren't worth anything anymore because they are "outdated?" I never understood why people bash art produced with older technology.
Someone just compared Ancient Paintings to WoW graphics!
2 completly different things.
WoW graphics are bad because they are bad Low polly count and Low texture detail for the time. The main reason you had the cartoony look was to hide the problems with there DirectX6.0 graphics engine.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Some of us are talking about low-poly, some about the style of the graphics.
The low-poly rants are coming from people with better-than-average PCs. It's time these people realised that MMOs aren't built for the top 10% who all have GeForce 8800s and Core2Quad Extreme CPUs.
Well, actually, Vanguard did that and look where it got them. Also EQ2 to some extent.
Newsflash: your average WoW player doesn't have an uber machine. Because of this, they don't care about "low-poly" this and "HQ AAx16" that. If you really want to play a game which is all eye-candy, then Crysis does quite well in that department.
Seriously, your average gamer doesn't blow $1000 on a gaming PC and $$$ more upgrading year. Catering to the people that do (hello Vanguard, again) results in disaster.
I am a hardcore WoW player and have been for years. I understand why people say the graphics are not that great. That is because they are not. As a WoW player I can say this. I understand why the graphics are poor and yes in a lot of ways it was a great marketing decision. That still does not change the fact that they are not all that great!
@bahanut ... critical hit from your wall of text.... i almost died. So you either write 2 words or 2000? I'm gonna shoot for the middle, but might get to talking... o well.
I played the game. You can't prove I didn't. I can't prove I did. That's like arguing about the existinance of a god.... waste of time, and irrelevant at that. So I went thru and struck out your personal attacks to get something to reply to.
And I LIKED eq2, pretty sure I said that too. I even got 3 expansions ... anyway, my comments was a comparison of the CONSISTENCY between eq2 and wow.
Imagine consistency could be measured, let's say 0 is bad and 10 is good. Now you also have the resolution or quality of an object, (different metric). Let's say an HDTV resolution character is 10 quality, or a wall with intricate bump maps and textures is 10 quality, a detailed unique tree that sways in the wind is 10 quality etc. And let's say bugs bunny, with it's thick lines and solid textures is 0 quality.
Let's take a few examples to see this at work:
- take an HDTV resolution character (10 quality) and have them run around against a bugs bunny cartoon background (0 quality), you have a very low measure of consistency (consistency = 0)
- If you take a bugs bunny cartoon character against a bugs bunny cartoon background, you have high consistency, (consistency = 10)
- if you take an HDTV resolution character in an HDTV background, you have a high consistency (10 let's say).
Given these definitions, you are just making a case that the quality of a eq2 is better than the quality of WoW. You are arguing against ghosts, because I never said that. The quality of eq2 IS more than wow. WoW is low quality characters, low quality world, low quality items, low quality furniture. In fact, I would just give EVERY item in the WoW world a 2 for quality. (but that yields maximum consistency btw... like a 10).
With eq2, you got detailed characters, detailed items... very REALISTIC. The video dialogs have between 80-100 options i would guess (been a while) that allow you to crank up the world detail. Turn those options off or all the way down, your consistency drops close to zero with your HDTV level characters and weapons. Crank em up, and it's not as bad, but still maybe not a 10, because the model is not increased with your dials, only textures and the things you see. In other words, you can not turn up a dial and increase the number of polygons modelling some part of the world, only turn up the resolution of a texture, or making items seen that were not seen before, or making a shadow appear etc.
Of course they did this for performance. You can't just go 10 quality on everything, because no one could run it, (ala vanguard). BUT consider this... in the real world, you don't just turn on shadows and leave the foilage off. That's not realistic. You don't just turn up the detail on a texture and leave the model the same, not realistic. eq2 (and all these other ones that go for realism) are forced to pick and choose the quality of different parts of their games. All this variability in the quality of the different parts of the worlds decrease it's consistency measure, and make it less immersive.
WoW just cut thru all that and made a consistent cartoon world, where everything had the same level of detail, done. And it runs on everyone's machine, done.
So bringing that back around to the OP, I was saying I don't hate WoW's graphics. I think blizzard did what they did to create a consistent world, that is immersive because of it, and that will run on everyone's machine. Every other game is all caught up in the quest for visual realism, but fail imo, because they either:
A). require behemoth machines to render everything turned up to 10 quality level (vanguard failure).
. have all kinds of varying levels of quality within the game, either hard set, or with dialog dials, and fail because then they loose consistency.
( hmm.... well, probably 2k words myself. sorry about that. And to maybe avoid more wasted personal rankor, I don't play either game anymore, so I'm not selling anything here)
( EDIT: and all these other posts... these terms: good bad poor.... all subjective. Can't we use words like low-res, detailed etc? I mean, even Mickey Mouse is famous and has generated billions in revenue, pretty damn good imo (since money is the measure of all things)... but I wouldn't say the graphics were bad, just low-res. )
Comments
Quick someone call child services because this guy has obviously had his 13 year old chained in the basement for the last 3 years!!! LOL
How in the world did your 13 yr old NOT know what WoW was? He must have at least seen a commercial, an advertisement, talked to someone at school about the game. Something. I have a 6 year old grandson that knows what WoW is or at least when he see the commercial on TV he knows it's the game that Paw Paw plays.
I disagree. You do risk something by putting out a game that has very high end graphics and giving users the ability to turn down the graphics options to the lowest settings to get acceptable gameplay. I expect to be able to play the game with the default graphics settings and I will complain when I can't and have to turn it down to the lowest settings. I feel like the money I spent on the game was wasted because my PC can't handle the graphics. I expect reasonable performance with the graphics options set to the default settings and I think most people are like that. That doesn't mean that you should cater to the lowest common denominator, but I think the best option is to go for the middle ground somewhere between great graphics and responsive gameplay. That way people who have the high end systems can turn it up for better graphics (not the best but better) and those with low end systems can turn it down for better performance. Someone with a middle of the road PC expects middle of the road performance from middle of the road graphics settings and going for the high end graphics does not usually allow for that.
I think the textures need ALOT more detail, they were minimal when the game was released and look even worse now.
Although that probably helped its success as those with crap PCs could easily play on high settings. I always found them lacking to the extreme.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
lol, well with over 10 Million subs....I don't see how "Everyone" hates the graphics.
I think Silvermoon is Beatiful!!!!!!!!!
Because they're low-rez cartoony graphics. Many players want a more 'real' looking world than what WoW provides. While anime is fun and all I personally detest it in my video games. Hated zelda because it was so anime' looking on our Wii, in fact.
And if you don't believe the low rez statement get in close to the graphics and look how they pixelate when you get close in on them. That's by design, of course, so that the game can handle the number of players in any given area better. But the bottom line is that the graphics are cartoony and kind of low resolution after all is said and done. Which, to a lot of folks, is a double negative. Personally I could care less about how low rez they are as long as t hey're appealing... but they aren't appealing to me because I HATE cartoony games.
"A ship-of-war is the best ambassador." - Oliver Cromwell
To be honest, the graphics are horrid and incredibly outdated. I don't like the models because the male looks way to bulky and females looks just.. wrong >_>
One of the big reasons why i don't play it is because of such a huge and popular game, the graphics are really a sad view of it. It would be much better if they had a revamp of the models so you could atleast get a "normal" shaped toon that doesn't have 100kg muscles and still thin as a stick.
Just my two cents.
The speed of the mole and the power of steel is my weapon
The graphics are low-res, no doubt about that.
But they are CONSISTENT.
Example: the level of detail of a character and the level of detail of an item, or a landscape, or a building, or a room, are all the same. Of course it would be great if the virtual world looked completely real, but the masses do not have rigs that can do that yet. Instead, blizz went for a vibrant, artsy, varied world that was sort of like a cartoon. But it's consistent throughout.
Contrast it with something like EQ2 that came out at the same time. They went for a realism, but they failed, because the level of detail of a character (which was very high btw) did not compare with the detail of the landscape or some big wall in a town. You have this immensely detailed control over a toon's face (cheekbones, eyes etc.) but then run around in this town that has a wall that is a huge flat polygon with a texture slapped on it. And ALL the walls in the town are like that. Where are the imperfections that make things look real? not there. engines can't handle it. Oblivion is about the best that can be done so far, but that came out a little later I think.
And modelling has to fit in here somewhere. Comparing WoW with EQ2 again (since they came out at the same time) ... EQ2 would have areas where you can run along an edge of two large polygons... something that never exists in nature... hence does not fit with making a realistic world. WoW however had a very good vertically-interesting model of terrain, rolling hills, etc. Seldom if ever would I be running along and go 'ick... i'm running 100 yards on a polygon edge' etc.
There again, constistent. WoW was well modelled, constistent detail. The games that have gone for realism have either failed on the consistency test (eq2) or tried to do it all and failed because the hardware to run it is not prevalent (vanguard).
OP: Because they suck.
airhead: You're wrong.
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
My take on it is: WoW graphics are like the Wii. They aren't great but the gameplay makes up for it. They are bad but very stylized, and that is their strong point.
WoW's graphics engine may be old and outdated compared to newer games but Blizzard makes it work. Some zones can be pretty bland and tiresome but there are many that look great. Even after 2 years of WoW I was incredibly impressed of the blood elf starter zone.
bahamut1: I'm right. Your argument is too weak for rebuttal.
bahamut1: I'm right. Your argument is too weak for rebuttal.
Dude, there is graffitti on the walls, notes carved into trees, gash marks on walls from battle, and even trails left on floors and the ground by past happenings. The attention to detail in EQ2 surpasses that of WoW. Even the "wall with no purpose" in Qeynos is in exact detail stone by stone of the original wall from EQ1 in perfect scale.
Your argument was too ludicrous to deserve a rebuttal. You were just plain wrong.
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
bahamut1: I'm right. Your argument is too weak for rebuttal.
Dude, there is graffitti on the walls, notes carved into trees, gash marks on walls from battle, and even trails left on floors and the ground by past happenings. The attention to detail in EQ2 surpasses that of WoW. Even the "wall with no purpose" in Qeynos is in exact detail stone by stone of the original wall from EQ1 in perfect scale.
Your argument was too ludicrous to deserve a rebuttal. You were just plain wrong.
hehe... ok. I said several things, so I didn't know what you were even disagreeing with...
EQ2. I played it for 1+ years and enjoyed it... good game. But the graphics and detail WERE inconsistent. I could also be a smart ass and say your argument doesn't deserve a rebuttal, but I'm not a smart ass, so I will rebut...
If we are going to argue about art, we need something in front of us to talk about. I propose that we use and refer to different screenshots on this site. When I use the notation oss.3.4.1, I am referring to official screen shot (oss), tab 3, row 4, column 1. etc. (uss = user screen shot). So get another browser tab open and check out these screen shots on this site (mmorpg.com) for examples:
oss.4.4.1 - ok. I see big flat wall with a texture on it. I've made maps in my day, and this is about as dull and simple as you can get. graffiti? a rock bulging out of place somewhere? maybe a few rocks of a different size? Maybe a rock or two of different colors even? nada...A texture slapped on a polygon.
oss.2.3.1 - just check out that mountain range. I've hiked around in real mountains for years, and I've never seen a mountain with such straight edges, and sharp corners where the 'polygons' meet. (oh... sorry, was supposed to feel realistic right?).
oss.5.4.1 - check out the ground. One big giant FLAT polygon with a texture on it. What's realistic about that?
oss.12.1.3 - Check out that slope from the bottom right corner up to the middle. It's so straight, you could lay a ruler down and trace that landscape and you would have a hard time making a line that straight. It's the junction of two polygons, as they built their world with little detail.
uss.11.1.1 (and 2). For some high detail, check out that armor.... every freaking link of chain mail can be seen... with a backdrop that is bland and single textured over a wide area? The armor and characters were immensely detailed, the world was not. It was watching HDTV characters running around in a regular tv signal world.
Anyway, I could go on. My initial argument was not that there was zero detail, there is, in some places. But it's not EVERYWHERE, hence it's not consistent, and this lack of consistency detracts from immersion (for me). By being simplistic and cartoony, WoW was able to make a game with the same level of detail in both the characters, the items laying around, the trees, the landscape, etc.
Some people notice small details and cherish them, as you do with the graffiti on the walls, (something I never noticed after playing over a year). That's ok, doesn't make you wrong or anything... just different. I am bugged by inconsistency more than others, doesn't make me wrong either. We are talking about art here; not math.
bahamut1: I'm right. Your argument is too weak for rebuttal.
Dude, there is graffitti on the walls, notes carved into trees, gash marks on walls from battle, and even trails left on floors and the ground by past happenings. The attention to detail in EQ2 surpasses that of WoW. Even the "wall with no purpose" in Qeynos is in exact detail stone by stone of the original wall from EQ1 in perfect scale.
Your argument was too ludicrous to deserve a rebuttal. You were just plain wrong.
hehe... ok. I said several things, so I didn't know what you were even disagreeing with...
EQ2. I played it for 1+ years and enjoyed it... good game. But the graphics and detail WERE inconsistent. I could also be a smart ass and say your argument doesn't deserve a rebuttal, but I'm not a smart ass, so I will rebut...
If we are going to argue about art, we need something in front of us to talk about. I propose that we use and refer to different screenshots on this site. When I use the notation oss.3.4.1, I am referring to official screen shot (oss), tab 3, row 4, column 1. etc. (uss = user screen shot). So get another browser tab open and check out these screen shots on this site (mmorpg.com) for examples:
oss.4.4.1 - ok. I see big flat wall with a texture on it. I've made maps in my day, and this is about as dull and simple as you can get. graffiti? a rock bulging out of place somewhere? maybe a few rocks of a different size? Maybe a rock or two of different colors even? nada...A texture slapped on a polygon.
oss.2.3.1 - just check out that mountain range. I've hiked around in real mountains for years, and I've never seen a mountain with such straight edges, and sharp corners where the 'polygons' meet. (oh... sorry, was supposed to feel realistic right?).
oss.5.4.1 - check out the ground. One big giant FLAT polygon with a texture on it. What's realistic about that?
oss.12.1.3 - Check out that slope from the bottom right corner up to the middle. It's so straight, you could lay a ruler down and trace that landscape and you would have a hard time making a line that straight. It's the junction of two polygons, as they built their world with little detail.
uss.11.1.1 (and 2). For some high detail, check out that armor.... every freaking link of chain mail can be seen... with a backdrop that is bland and single textured over a wide area? The armor and characters were immensely detailed, the world was not. It was watching HDTV characters running around in a regular tv signal world.
Anyway, I could go on. My initial argument was not that there was zero detail, there is, in some places. But it's not EVERYWHERE, hence it's not consistent, and this lack of consistency detracts from immersion (for me). By being simplistic and cartoony, WoW was able to make a game with the same level of detail in both the characters, the items laying around, the trees, the landscape, etc.
Some people notice small details and cherish them, as you do with the graffiti on the walls, (something I never noticed after playing over a year). That's ok, doesn't make you wrong or anything... just different. I am bugged by inconsistency more than others, doesn't make me wrong either. We are talking about art here; not math.
Airhead;
There are many different ways to adjust the graphics in EQ2, more techy stuff than I've seen in any game. I play it myself in a way where character graphics are upped more than world textures simply for performance reasons. Perhaps your settings don't take advantage of EQ2's highest resolutions. How many games have bump mapping to give every brick highlights and shadow. How many games don't even recommend turning on high rez textures unless you have 512MB of video ram. No game will ever have a wall texture spread over a huge polygon seem as detailed as the same resolution texture squished on to a small portion of armor. Walls look okay to me tho.
Sry if this is now offtopic, but you can't knock EQ2 graphics. They are the most realistic out there.
To get back to the point of this thread:
Wow has some very artistic graphics and obviously very talented graphic artists, probably more so than the guys at SOE that are looking to mimic real life. After all, mimicing a real wall takes less art and more power. I do believe games should push the limits of technology for immersion sake. Blizzard didn't care about that though and people that expect that new technology should exceed the limitations of old technology get annoyed by that. And, its like when gramps buy a new high definition television so he can plug in his VCR and watch I Love Lucy reruns. It just annoys some people. I don't hate Wow for their disregard towards advances in video card technology, but its a factor in why I decide to not play it. Many of us respect the desire to produce a cutting edge product whatever it is, Blizzard did the opposite in terms of graphics. But they did put out a very pretty vase that gramps would love.
-Ken
Meh. To each his own.
Personally I love Mangastyle aka Lineage 2 or Realistic like Vanguard much better.
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
Aha. Ahahahaha. Haaahahahaha! No, wait. Ahahahahahahaahhhhhaaaaa!
You aren't seriously saying that screenshots are a bad way to judge a game's graphics are you? Because the game is 3D and screenshots are 2D? Bwuhahahahaha!
Man, you should be a comedian. Oh, in case you haven't worked out why this is so funny.... 3D games are not viewed in 3D. They are projected onto a 2D surface (ie your screen). Looking at a screenshot and looking at the game on your screen are almost the same thing. Except you don't see movement.
But thanks for the laugh
quite simply cant enjoy the cartoony feel, i like nitty gritty realistic...i dont wanna sit down to a game that feels like it belongs on a kids cartoon channel.
After playing Lineage 2 and Eve Online for a couple of years it is unsuprising that I almost fell off my chair laughing when I saw WoWs graphics. They really do suck compared to Lineage 2. Lineage 2 is beautiful in comparison but it feels kind of flat and less immersive than WoW, I do agree there is a lot of attention to details but imo the art is poor compared to Lineage 2 and the low res textures are nasty. then again compared to say EQ2 which has high system requirements and looks like shit it isn't that bad.
Just to explain what I mean about EQ2, because I know there are a lot of EQ2 fans, technically the graphics are good but the actual art work is horrible. No style at all, it just looks damn ugly.
I like the cartoony graphics. Reminds me of Warcraft games. As for realitic graphic games like EQ2 and such....to me these work so hard to try to make an unreal thing real that they create something that is lifeless and has not sense of style. They can have all the pretty skies they want, but I want something that is fun not life like.
That's because WoW's graphics don't suck... the people who complain they are are hardcore gaming nerds who dont even represent normal people. They're like computer guys who complain that 192kbps mp3s are bad quality and they need 30924783573 kbps ogg files instead.
Also, WoW's graphics are good considering they run on integrated graphics, which is a HUGE boon for WoW. Virtually any average laptop from the past 2 years can run WoW. That expands the user base big time.
2 completly different things.
WoW graphics are bad because they are bad Low polly count and Low texture detail for the time. The main reason you had the cartoony look was to hide the problems with there DirectX6.0 graphics engine.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Some of us are talking about low-poly, some about the style of the graphics.
The low-poly rants are coming from people with better-than-average PCs. It's time these people realised that MMOs aren't built for the top 10% who all have GeForce 8800s and Core2Quad Extreme CPUs.
Well, actually, Vanguard did that and look where it got them. Also EQ2 to some extent.
Newsflash: your average WoW player doesn't have an uber machine. Because of this, they don't care about "low-poly" this and "HQ AAx16" that. If you really want to play a game which is all eye-candy, then Crysis does quite well in that department.
Seriously, your average gamer doesn't blow $1000 on a gaming PC and $$$ more upgrading year. Catering to the people that do (hello Vanguard, again) results in disaster.
I am a hardcore WoW player and have been for years. I understand why people say the graphics are not that great. That is because they are not. As a WoW player I can say this. I understand why the graphics are poor and yes in a lot of ways it was a great marketing decision. That still does not change the fact that they are not all that great!
@bahanut ... critical hit from your wall of text.... i almost died. So you either write 2 words or 2000? I'm gonna shoot for the middle, but might get to talking... o well.
I played the game. You can't prove I didn't. I can't prove I did. That's like arguing about the existinance of a god.... waste of time, and irrelevant at that. So I went thru and struck out your personal attacks to get something to reply to.
And I LIKED eq2, pretty sure I said that too. I even got 3 expansions ... anyway, my comments was a comparison of the CONSISTENCY between eq2 and wow.
Imagine consistency could be measured, let's say 0 is bad and 10 is good. Now you also have the resolution or quality of an object, (different metric). Let's say an HDTV resolution character is 10 quality, or a wall with intricate bump maps and textures is 10 quality, a detailed unique tree that sways in the wind is 10 quality etc. And let's say bugs bunny, with it's thick lines and solid textures is 0 quality.
Let's take a few examples to see this at work:
- take an HDTV resolution character (10 quality) and have them run around against a bugs bunny cartoon background (0 quality), you have a very low measure of consistency (consistency = 0)
- If you take a bugs bunny cartoon character against a bugs bunny cartoon background, you have high consistency, (consistency = 10)
- if you take an HDTV resolution character in an HDTV background, you have a high consistency (10 let's say).
Given these definitions, you are just making a case that the quality of a eq2 is better than the quality of WoW. You are arguing against ghosts, because I never said that. The quality of eq2 IS more than wow. WoW is low quality characters, low quality world, low quality items, low quality furniture. In fact, I would just give EVERY item in the WoW world a 2 for quality. (but that yields maximum consistency btw... like a 10).
With eq2, you got detailed characters, detailed items... very REALISTIC. The video dialogs have between 80-100 options i would guess (been a while) that allow you to crank up the world detail. Turn those options off or all the way down, your consistency drops close to zero with your HDTV level characters and weapons. Crank em up, and it's not as bad, but still maybe not a 10, because the model is not increased with your dials, only textures and the things you see. In other words, you can not turn up a dial and increase the number of polygons modelling some part of the world, only turn up the resolution of a texture, or making items seen that were not seen before, or making a shadow appear etc.
Of course they did this for performance. You can't just go 10 quality on everything, because no one could run it, (ala vanguard). BUT consider this... in the real world, you don't just turn on shadows and leave the foilage off. That's not realistic. You don't just turn up the detail on a texture and leave the model the same, not realistic. eq2 (and all these other ones that go for realism) are forced to pick and choose the quality of different parts of their games. All this variability in the quality of the different parts of the worlds decrease it's consistency measure, and make it less immersive.
WoW just cut thru all that and made a consistent cartoon world, where everything had the same level of detail, done. And it runs on everyone's machine, done.
So bringing that back around to the OP, I was saying I don't hate WoW's graphics. I think blizzard did what they did to create a consistent world, that is immersive because of it, and that will run on everyone's machine. Every other game is all caught up in the quest for visual realism, but fail imo, because they either:
A). require behemoth machines to render everything turned up to 10 quality level (vanguard failure).
( hmm.... well, probably 2k words myself. sorry about that. And to maybe avoid more wasted personal rankor, I don't play either game anymore, so I'm not selling anything here)
( EDIT: and all these other posts... these terms: good bad poor.... all subjective. Can't we use words like low-res, detailed etc? I mean, even Mickey Mouse is famous and has generated billions in revenue, pretty damn good imo (since money is the measure of all things)... but I wouldn't say the graphics were bad, just low-res. )