So with what you said in the highlighted yellow text, I smell a Vangaurd follower...I find it ironic, lots of people were saying how good it is compared to VG, but it looks to be going through the same situation as VG.
Did I mention VG? Nope sorry, what we got here is a AOC fanboi trying to convince me how 25FPS is acceptable on a top of the line PC with an amazing video card. AOC is close to the state that Vanguard was at release, and this is not a stretch or just my imagination; and VG was crap at release and it's still crap and once AOC releases it will be crap and a year from that AOC will still suffer from performance issues and low frame rates and unplayable game. Instead of tweanking their ubber visuals and photoshop screenshots like they did years before the release maybe they should have been busy optimizing the game.
l have just gotta say that you offer me no proof Ubber as to what you are saying is true.
To me, your just an anonomous sh*t stirrer looking to get a rise out of others for your own sport, so forgive me if I just tune you out. What you say has no value or worth.
I personally will try AoC when it releases, but I will also try Darkfall if it ever does as well. I have no axe to grind against this game. saying that, I honestly am thinking that AoC is looking way nicer on most counts and more suited to my tastes art direction wise.
What do I know though? WoW looks like crap to me but millions think otherwise.
In my personal opinion I think that Age of Conan look better than Drakfall, BUT I'd preferred Darkfall engine over zoning hell engine to funcom any day of the week...
You guys keep going on and on about how AOC pwns DF graphically, I never said that DF's visuals look better, what I said that AOC's visuals will never be realized by the vast majority of the player base because quite frankly there are way too many performance issues involving AOC. Like I said, you get less the 25 FPS running the damn thing with 8800 Ultra.
In the end all those graphical enhancements don't mean jack when you can't run the game properly to begin with, because when it comes down to it you have to scale back the quality in order to run the game and not suffer through crappy frame rates.
All of you AOC fanbois need to take a hike, this is not your forum; so don't come here shooting your mouth of about graphics that your own pc cant' even handle.
What you are stating here is simply not true... Im not a AoC fanboy, I will not be playing it, not at launch or at a later stage. In two months you will be proven wrong...
You guys keep going on and on about how AOC pwns DF graphically Erm... No, I said I preferred AoC's art direction. But yes, I do think AoC has a more advanced engine. Whether the majority have the machines to run it wasnt the point of contention. The simple fact is that AoC, run at full tilt, is much better looking then DF on full tilt. DF is more the level of EQ2 imo; Pretty, but no longer the top of the heap graphically. Of course, there is nothing saying it has to be the prettiest game out there to be a success. WoW proved that. I never said that DF's visuals look better, what I said that AOC's visuals will never be realized by the vast majority of the player base because quite frankly there are way too many performance issues involving AOC. That was never the basis of this thread. The point being talked about here was which was the prettiest game and why people thought what they thought. Whether the people out there in casual-gamer land have the machines to run it is irrelevant to this particular discussion. I am not saying it isnt a point worth talking about, but hijacking this thread, and making obvious attempts to flame people here to do it, isnt a good thing. Like I said, you get less the 25 FPS running the damn thing with 8800 Ultra. So you say. Like I say though, wheres your proof? Who are you? Why should I trust you? The obvious answer is that I shouldnt and I sgould make my own mind up from sources that I DO trust. In the end all those graphical enhancements don't mean jack when you can't run the game properly to begin with, Heh... you mean you can't? The offical statement is, and I have no reason to take your word over that at this point, that if ou can run Oblivion you can run this. Tbh, if you can't run Oblivion right now, the problm is with you and not AoC. because when it comes down to it you have to scale back the quality in order to run the game and not suffer through crappy frame rates. Again, so you say. Who are you again? All of you AOC fanbois need to take a hike I am objective about this whole issue, can you say the same? Telling people 'to take a hike' as part of a discussion is very poor debate and just shows me that you cannot support your points with evidence and substance. this is not your forum; so don't come here shooting your mouth of about graphics that your own pc cant' even handle. lol, these are all public forums. Who gave you the right to control who posts where? And, thx, but my PC can run Oblivion (at the least) just fine. I am sorry yours can't... unless theres another source of the obvious resentment you show in these posts?
______________________________ The Sceptics, yes they're special but we've need them to.. I guess. And if they're put more effort MMORPG.com can create a 'Team Sceptic' and send them to the Special Olympus.
Your all smoking something or Darkfall fanbois (duh, this originated in the Darkfall forums). Darkfall has a far dated graphics engine than AoC and CANNOT compare. I am no means an AOC fanboi. Hell, I don't even plan to buy or play the game. However, It's like in a previous thread I read this morning saying WoW > Vanguard graphics. You HAVE to be smoking something to say something like this.
BTW, those screenshots are VERY old of AoC. Care for a taste of the new?
Anyone with eyes can tell AoC > Darkfall graphics, but lets not jump ship just yet gentlemen. A game is NOT defined by graphics. It is defined by it's community and it's content + gameplay.
-DraGa
Sorry, but those screenshots make AoC appear much more cartoony than Darkfall. The feel in darkfall is supposed to be dreary and drab, and they haven't revealed ANY pictures of some of the dungeon/lore areas, so I'd wager there are rich colors elsewhere. AoC is just an inferior game. As bad as Tabula Rasa with its claims to be "FPS like" in combat. Lame.
Your all smoking something or Darkfall fanbois (duh, this originated in the Darkfall forums). Darkfall has a far dated graphics engine than AoC and CANNOT compare. I am no means an AOC fanboi. Hell, I don't even plan to buy or play the game. However, It's like in a previous thread I read this morning saying WoW > Vanguard graphics. You HAVE to be smoking something to say something like this.
BTW, those screenshots are VERY old of AoC. Care for a taste of the new?
Anyone with eyes can tell AoC > Darkfall graphics, but lets not jump ship just yet gentlemen. A game is NOT defined by graphics. It is defined by it's community and it's content + gameplay.
-DraGa
Sorry, but those screenshots make AoC appear much more cartoony than Darkfall. The feel in darkfall is supposed to be dreary and drab, and they haven't revealed ANY pictures of some of the dungeon/lore areas, so I'd wager there are rich colors elsewhere. AoC is just an inferior game. As bad as Tabula Rasa with its claims to be "FPS like" in combat. Lame.
Cartoony? Errr....which pictures are you looking at?
Darkfall may be supposed to be dreary and drab....too bad we don't see any of that yet. Darkfall may come out to be the Uber-Super game, but from what one can see so far, the graphics -ARE- inferior. That's not the game's fault. The engine is outdated and maybe (hopefully) they will get an update to the engine soon.
But, judging from your post, a discussion with you is pointless anyway. Have fun.
Conan looks better. Character model wise theyre similar,but Conans environments look lots better than Darkfalls. Depends how the games look moving tbh,flashy graphics mean nothing if it moves like a crippled robot with leg splints. Plus how well do they run on a non super computer? Hows lag? Will I need to tune down settings to get a decent framerate? all kinds of variables you need to add in. Static pictures dont tell the whole story.
Are you serious?! Five seconds of animation render doesn't tell you a thing about gameplay smoothness.
In response to the general gist of your thread, I do think that the Darkfall graphics look pretty good in places, and I do like the more muted palette they've chosen (though I equally like the Conan palette which is so reminscent of the 70's and 80's fantasy painting style of artists like Vallejo and Frazetta). Sadly it's the gaping holes in DF's quality that really help show it's age - compare the blocky models in DF (the hands and feet, the hair, the expressionless faces) with the natural detailing in Conan; compare thethinned-out 2D grass and leaves in DF with the thick foliage in AoC; compare the (lack of) distant geographic elements in DF with the almost painted vistas in AoC.
These things clearly show the difference between a professional studio and an indie one who's been working on their labour of love for so long they've lost touch with what current tech capabilities can allow. And there's also the unfortunate fact that, once all artistic preferences are set aside, those who prefer AoC will at least have a game to play this year.
Sorry cant agree with anything you said. Cant see anything special in the faces nor hair or hands and feets in this screenie. Maybe you can point it out for me.
Whether you want thick foliage or not is a matter of choice, same with bright colours. When you look on a screenie you see the whole screenshot as more/less colours, details, water and face expressions. And the overall graphic in Darkfall is better then AoC graphics to me. There is more to graphics then polygons, style is a huge issue. The stylistic design of Darkfall is absolutely beautiful in my eyes. Where as AoC doesnt look like anything special.
AoC doesnt look half as good ingame as it does in the screenshots they photoshop.
Funny you didnt mention armor details?
I believe what he means is look at the hands. In the screen you posted for DF, the hands look like those from old EQ. They are a block with finger lines drawn on them. Then look at the screen for AoC. The fingers are actual fingers.
As for armor details, its all artistic choice. DF screen shots have armor thats is supposed to be what looks like chain mail, let its shiny like its encased in plastic. But again you really cant say anything for certain seeing as you havent played either game to get an honest representation of each.
Sorry for double posting, however, also take a much closer look at all the general models in Darkfall. It's all blocky low-polygonal models with filters, specular mapped textures, and meshes upon the textures to make it "look" like it's got decent graphics.
Games such as Guildwars, WOW, and LOTRO were the major title bearers that brought this type of low-resource needing graphics to the table.
Aoc, however, does not need to do this. They are far better detailed and intricately created. Don't worry though. They have refined, and are continueing to refine, their engine so on medium graphics someone with an old Nvidia 7800GS can play with over 40fps (the human eye really can't tell past 30).
I really didnt want to reply to this thread, because the whole discussion and the comparsion is rather useless and obvious in the first place.
Of course, and without any doubt, the AoC engine/graphic uses higher polygons, and by the way it was confirmed from the DF devs, that they will use as less polygons as possible.
So in this part it is quite clear, AoC do have the higher polygons, and looks more detailed. No need to argue anymore about this.
So everyone said that the AoC graphics is more detailed, had more polygons is absolutely correct, and it is the truth.
But graphics in general are not just polygons, good graphics depend on art style, color theme, details(not polygons here.. i take about gimicks in the landscape or characters possible without polygons, WoW is here a good example of a lot of details without much polygons at all), and graphic effects(bump mapping, dynamic shadowing and so on).
AoC try to be good at all parts, have his own art style, his color theme, enough details, all possible graphic effects and a lot of polygons.
Darkfall on the other part have also his own art style, his color theme, enough details, and recently we also saw the graphic effects(which is by the way the only difference from the new pictures/vids from the last few week, to the older one from for a year), and use as less polygons as possible like WoW and other games.
If you compare graphics, you can do it emotional, what you feel about it, or you can compare it from a more professional standpoint, and then you compare every part in itself.
And the reasons why Darkfall use not much polygons and AoC use a lot, has also to do how the games are set up. AoC is widely instanced, and Darkfall is not. If you want to display a lot of polygons, you need a high end machine.. art style, details, effects are rather cheap with todays standards, but polygon is the expensive(i talk about resources) part.
And now make it techincally, let say one DF avatar has around 10000 polygons, and the AoC avatar around 50 000 polygons(just guesses), and now let display 500 avatars at once, with DF you have now around 5 millions polygons to display, and with AoC around 25 millions, and now you will have problems with some cpus and especially gpus. AoC solves this with instancing, and DF with low polygons objects, and apart from this there are also some other methods to reduce the polygon load, like to reduce the polygon amount as far the object is away(different models for each object with different amounts of polygons), or to fade the distance away and cut out faraway objects.. but both will use those well known methods.
And from my point of view, the DF team have to go with low polygons object if they really want to realize a persistent world and fpsish combat. AoC pick out another way, to be able to display as much polygons, and with it as detailed as possible. Both are hard decisions, and both will effect the game, and the gameplay in one or another way.
AoC's graphics is by far superior then Darkfall, you cant even compare. Its like LotRO vs WoW
Its correct that they both uses a different game engines and they have concentrated their effort in to specific areas of graphics. Darkfall is designed for large scale battles with full PvP and no zones. AoC is more instansed and have more pre determend battles.
Or we can hit on the important argument.....graphics dont mean crud if the gameplay sucks. I would play a lower quality looking game in a heartbeat if the gameplay was engaging, challenging, rewarding and fun. To argue about appearance is an exercise in futility. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Its a faulty argument, because it is based on preference, it goes something like this-
"Brunette chicks are hotter than blondes! i have picutres to prove it. NOW LETS START A FLAME WAR!"
I think im not used to have those long real discussions here on the DF forum. At best there is one troll and a fanboi screaming yes and no to eachothers. So im amazed we accually have been able to talk about the game here for a week : )
And yes, the gameplay is more important. I draw my line at SB right now. UO i cant handle. So i could say as long the graphics is about SWG, im fine.
ha ha, a very good point. I think im not used to have those long real discussions here on the DF forum. At best there is one troll and a fanboi screaming yes and no to eachothers. So im amazed we accually have been able to talk about the game here for a week : ) And yes, the gameplay is more important. I draw my line at SB right now. UO i cant handle. So i could say as long the graphics is about SWG, im fine.
You guys keep going on and on about how AOC pwns DF graphically Erm... No, I said I preferred AoC's art direction. But yes, I do think AoC has a more advanced engine. Whether the majority have the machines to run it wasnt the point of contention. The simple fact is that AoC, run at full tilt, is much better looking then DF on full tilt. DF is more the level of EQ2 imo; Pretty, but no longer the top of the heap graphically. Of course, there is nothing saying it has to be the prettiest game out there to be a success. WoW proved that. I never said that DF's visuals look better, what I said that AOC's visuals will never be realized by the vast majority of the player base because quite frankly there are way too many performance issues involving AOC. That was never the basis of this thread. The point being talked about here was which was the prettiest game and why people thought what they thought. Whether the people out there in casual-gamer land have the machines to run it is irrelevant to this particular discussion. I am not saying it isnt a point worth talking about, but hijacking this thread, and making obvious attempts to flame people here to do it, isnt a good thing. Like I said, you get less the 25 FPS running the damn thing with 8800 Ultra. So you say. Like I say though, wheres your proof? Who are you? Why should I trust you? The obvious answer is that I shouldnt and I sgould make my own mind up from sources that I DO trust. In the end all those graphical enhancements don't mean jack when you can't run the game properly to begin with, Heh... you mean you can't? The offical statement is, and I have no reason to take your word over that at this point, that if ou can run Oblivion you can run this. Tbh, if you can't run Oblivion right now, the problm is with you and not AoC. because when it comes down to it you have to scale back the quality in order to run the game and not suffer through crappy frame rates. Again, so you say. Who are you again? All of you AOC fanbois need to take a hike I am objective about this whole issue, can you say the same? Telling people 'to take a hike' as part of a discussion is very poor debate and just shows me that you cannot support your points with evidence and substance. this is not your forum; so don't come here shooting your mouth of about graphics that your own pc cant' even handle. lol, these are all public forums. Who gave you the right to control who posts where? And, thx, but my PC can run Oblivion (at the least) just fine. I am sorry yours can't... unless theres another source of the obvious resentment you show in these posts?
I completely agree with this guy!
The original topic to discuss was which games graphics you preferred, not which game was better in terms of game play and/or system requirements. Also, if this is indeed a Darkfall forum, why would someone tell everyone else to "take a hike" wouldn't you want others opinions on the games graphics other than Darkfall fans posting the same thing over and over "I prefer Darkfall". Would seen like a rather boring thread if you didn't want anyone else's opinions. Now i am not saying everyone who likes Darkfall would vote it their "game of choice" based on graphics...but you can't deny that the majority would be biased and say that.
Now, in my opinion i think Age of Conan has it going on with graphics (regardless of system performance).
Here's why, based on the video clip of the chick on the tiger mount notice how the back of the mount is so stiff and the person riding the mount is almost frozen...kind of a "turn off" for me as far as graphics are concerned. So regardless how pretty the game looks, i like my toons to look alive when they do things...even if they are riding a mount.
So once again, that was my *Opinion* not saying one is better as far as game play as the other, but for me i prefer Conan graphics over Darkfall graphics and will be giving Conan a try when it releases.
On that note i take my leave, and thank you for allowing me to voice my own opinion.
yea try it before yo speend money on it it sucks.. honestly its a single player game with multi tacked on go play potbs(the open sea is nice tho) thats how bad the instancing is. wtf is happening to open worlds whats with all the god darn instancing and zones all of sudden it kills the mmo feel of it badly
In my own opinion i do not think instancing is all that bad...i mean i played EverQuest 1 for like 5 years, had no problem zoning...actually the game would suck with out it because you damn near could not drop aggro unless you were an FD class
yea try it before yo speend money on it it sucks.. honestly its a single player game with multi tacked on go play potbs(the open sea is nice tho) thats how bad the instancing is. wtf is happening to open worlds whats with all the god darn instancing and zones all of sudden it kills the mmo feel of it badly
In my own opinion i do not think instancing is all that bad...i mean i played EverQuest 1 for like 5 years, had no problem zoning...actually the game would suck with out it because you damn near could not drop aggro unless you were an FD class
TRAAAIN!!!1!!
Can you spare a plat for a newbie please, pretty please?
______________________________ The Sceptics, yes they're special but we've need them to.. I guess. And if they're put more effort MMORPG.com can create a 'Team Sceptic' and send them to the Special Olympus.
Comments
This thread so stupid. You know Age of conan engine uses high definition textures and Geomtry? it is cutting-edge engine.
they are two engines on COMPLETELY DIFFERENT level. there is no comparing what conan engine can do compared to this..
all you need to do is watch some videos of conan and discussion is over with
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31211.html
here is movie of building cities in conan.. something this darkfall cannot show even after 7 years of time
To me, your just an anonomous sh*t stirrer looking to get a rise out of others for your own sport, so forgive me if I just tune you out. What you say has no value or worth.
I personally will try AoC when it releases, but I will also try Darkfall if it ever does as well. I have no axe to grind against this game. saying that, I honestly am thinking that AoC is looking way nicer on most counts and more suited to my tastes art direction wise.
What do I know though? WoW looks like crap to me but millions think otherwise.
conan =
In my personal opinion I think that Age of Conan look better than Drakfall, BUT I'd preferred Darkfall engine over zoning hell engine to funcom any day of the week...
You guys keep going on and on about how AOC pwns DF graphically, I never said that DF's visuals look better, what I said that AOC's visuals will never be realized by the vast majority of the player base because quite frankly there are way too many performance issues involving AOC. Like I said, you get less the 25 FPS running the damn thing with 8800 Ultra.
In the end all those graphical enhancements don't mean jack when you can't run the game properly to begin with, because when it comes down to it you have to scale back the quality in order to run the game and not suffer through crappy frame rates.
All of you AOC fanbois need to take a hike, this is not your forum; so don't come here shooting your mouth of about graphics that your own pc cant' even handle.
this argument is null and void
Darkfall does not support DX10
AoC does
take a look at DX10 comparisons to DX9.
both games look great (darkfall is one of the better looking MMO's around) but AoC is better looking.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
UbberGoober,
What you are stating here is simply not true... Im not a AoC fanboy, I will not be playing it, not at launch or at a later stage. In two months you will be proven wrong...
Here is a link to some better pics of AoC, enjoy.
www.tothegame.com/sshotfeat.asp
Aye, they look great!
______________________________
The Sceptics, yes they're special but we've need them to.. I guess.
And if they're put more effort MMORPG.com can create a 'Team Sceptic'
and send them to the Special Olympus.
Aye, they look great!
Agree, nice looking screenies.
Sorry, but those screenshots make AoC appear much more cartoony than Darkfall. The feel in darkfall is supposed to be dreary and drab, and they haven't revealed ANY pictures of some of the dungeon/lore areas, so I'd wager there are rich colors elsewhere. AoC is just an inferior game. As bad as Tabula Rasa with its claims to be "FPS like" in combat. Lame.
Good stuff. Now these shots really show the stylistic differences between DF and AoC. It's a shame AoC won't have the depth to keep me interested.
Sorry, but those screenshots make AoC appear much more cartoony than Darkfall. The feel in darkfall is supposed to be dreary and drab, and they haven't revealed ANY pictures of some of the dungeon/lore areas, so I'd wager there are rich colors elsewhere. AoC is just an inferior game. As bad as Tabula Rasa with its claims to be "FPS like" in combat. Lame.
Cartoony? Errr....which pictures are you looking at?Darkfall may be supposed to be dreary and drab....too bad we don't see any of that yet. Darkfall may come out to be the Uber-Super game, but from what one can see so far, the graphics -ARE- inferior. That's not the game's fault. The engine is outdated and maybe (hopefully) they will get an update to the engine soon.
But, judging from your post, a discussion with you is pointless anyway. Have fun.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Aye agree, ingame is most important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46j3ih9x5Xk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vECzr6FY5Zk
Seems smooth to me, a bit short though.
Are you serious?! Five seconds of animation render doesn't tell you a thing about gameplay smoothness.
In response to the general gist of your thread, I do think that the Darkfall graphics look pretty good in places, and I do like the more muted palette they've chosen (though I equally like the Conan palette which is so reminscent of the 70's and 80's fantasy painting style of artists like Vallejo and Frazetta). Sadly it's the gaping holes in DF's quality that really help show it's age - compare the blocky models in DF (the hands and feet, the hair, the expressionless faces) with the natural detailing in Conan; compare thethinned-out 2D grass and leaves in DF with the thick foliage in AoC; compare the (lack of) distant geographic elements in DF with the almost painted vistas in AoC.
These things clearly show the difference between a professional studio and an indie one who's been working on their labour of love for so long they've lost touch with what current tech capabilities can allow. And there's also the unfortunate fact that, once all artistic preferences are set aside, those who prefer AoC will at least have a game to play this year.
Sorry cant agree with anything you said. Cant see anything special in the faces nor hair or hands and feets in this screenie. Maybe you can point it out for me.
http://community.ageofconan.com/conan/frontend/files/CONTENT/AoC_16.jpg
Whether you want thick foliage or not is a matter of choice, same with bright colours. When you look on a screenie you see the whole screenshot as more/less colours, details, water and face expressions. And the overall graphic in Darkfall is better then AoC graphics to me. There is more to graphics then polygons, style is a huge issue. The stylistic design of Darkfall is absolutely beautiful in my eyes. Where as AoC doesnt look like anything special.
AoC doesnt look half as good ingame as it does in the screenshots they photoshop.
Funny you didnt mention armor details?
I believe what he means is look at the hands. In the screen you posted for DF, the hands look like those from old EQ. They are a block with finger lines drawn on them. Then look at the screen for AoC. The fingers are actual fingers.As for armor details, its all artistic choice. DF screen shots have armor thats is supposed to be what looks like chain mail, let its shiny like its encased in plastic. But again you really cant say anything for certain seeing as you havent played either game to get an honest representation of each.
Sorry for double posting, however, also take a much closer look at all the general models in Darkfall. It's all blocky low-polygonal models with filters, specular mapped textures, and meshes upon the textures to make it "look" like it's got decent graphics.
Games such as Guildwars, WOW, and LOTRO were the major title bearers that brought this type of low-resource needing graphics to the table.
Aoc, however, does not need to do this. They are far better detailed and intricately created. Don't worry though. They have refined, and are continueing to refine, their engine so on medium graphics someone with an old Nvidia 7800GS can play with over 40fps (the human eye really can't tell past 30).
I really didnt want to reply to this thread, because the whole discussion and the comparsion is rather useless and obvious in the first place.
Of course, and without any doubt, the AoC engine/graphic uses higher polygons, and by the way it was confirmed from the DF devs, that they will use as less polygons as possible.
So in this part it is quite clear, AoC do have the higher polygons, and looks more detailed. No need to argue anymore about this.
So everyone said that the AoC graphics is more detailed, had more polygons is absolutely correct, and it is the truth.
But graphics in general are not just polygons, good graphics depend on art style, color theme, details(not polygons here.. i take about gimicks in the landscape or characters possible without polygons, WoW is here a good example of a lot of details without much polygons at all), and graphic effects(bump mapping, dynamic shadowing and so on).
AoC try to be good at all parts, have his own art style, his color theme, enough details, all possible graphic effects and a lot of polygons.
Darkfall on the other part have also his own art style, his color theme, enough details, and recently we also saw the graphic effects(which is by the way the only difference from the new pictures/vids from the last few week, to the older one from for a year), and use as less polygons as possible like WoW and other games.
If you compare graphics, you can do it emotional, what you feel about it, or you can compare it from a more professional standpoint, and then you compare every part in itself.
And the reasons why Darkfall use not much polygons and AoC use a lot, has also to do how the games are set up. AoC is widely instanced, and Darkfall is not. If you want to display a lot of polygons, you need a high end machine.. art style, details, effects are rather cheap with todays standards, but polygon is the expensive(i talk about resources) part.
And now make it techincally, let say one DF avatar has around 10000 polygons, and the AoC avatar around 50 000 polygons(just guesses), and now let display 500 avatars at once, with DF you have now around 5 millions polygons to display, and with AoC around 25 millions, and now you will have problems with some cpus and especially gpus. AoC solves this with instancing, and DF with low polygons objects, and apart from this there are also some other methods to reduce the polygon load, like to reduce the polygon amount as far the object is away(different models for each object with different amounts of polygons), or to fade the distance away and cut out faraway objects.. but both will use those well known methods.
And from my point of view, the DF team have to go with low polygons object if they really want to realize a persistent world and fpsish combat. AoC pick out another way, to be able to display as much polygons, and with it as detailed as possible. Both are hard decisions, and both will effect the game, and the gameplay in one or another way.
Its correct that they both uses a different game engines and they have concentrated their effort in to specific areas of graphics. Darkfall is designed for large scale battles with full PvP and no zones. AoC is more instansed and have more pre determend battles.
Or we can hit on the important argument.....graphics dont mean crud if the gameplay sucks. I would play a lower quality looking game in a heartbeat if the gameplay was engaging, challenging, rewarding and fun. To argue about appearance is an exercise in futility. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Its a faulty argument, because it is based on preference, it goes something like this-
"Brunette chicks are hotter than blondes! i have picutres to prove it. NOW LETS START A FLAME WAR!"
ha ha, a very good point.
I think im not used to have those long real discussions here on the DF forum. At best there is one troll and a fanboi screaming yes and no to eachothers. So im amazed we accually have been able to talk about the game here for a week : )
And yes, the gameplay is more important. I draw my line at SB right now. UO i cant handle. So i could say as long the graphics is about SWG, im fine.
i think it has surpassed them ...
The original topic to discuss was which games graphics you preferred, not which game was better in terms of game play and/or system requirements. Also, if this is indeed a Darkfall forum, why would someone tell everyone else to "take a hike" wouldn't you want others opinions on the games graphics other than Darkfall fans posting the same thing over and over "I prefer Darkfall". Would seen like a rather boring thread if you didn't want anyone else's opinions. Now i am not saying everyone who likes Darkfall would vote it their "game of choice" based on graphics...but you can't deny that the majority would be biased and say that.
Now, in my opinion i think Age of Conan has it going on with graphics (regardless of system performance).
Here's why, based on the video clip of the chick on the tiger mount notice how the back of the mount is so stiff and the person riding the mount is almost frozen...kind of a "turn off" for me as far as graphics are concerned. So regardless how pretty the game looks, i like my toons to look alive when they do things...even if they are riding a mount.
So once again, that was my *Opinion* not saying one is better as far as game play as the other, but for me i prefer Conan graphics over Darkfall graphics and will be giving Conan a try when it releases.
On that note i take my leave, and thank you for allowing me to voice my own opinion.
yea try it before yo speend money on it it sucks..
honestly its a single player game with multi tacked on go play potbs(the open sea is nice tho) thats how bad the instancing is.
wtf is happening to open worlds whats with all the god darn instancing and zones all of sudden it kills the mmo feel of it badly
And how do you know it sucks, and where exactly are you getting the idea it's a singleplayer game?
Also, unless you've played both recently to know first hand, you cannot compare the instancing of AoC to PotBS.
In my own opinion i do not think instancing is all that bad...i mean i played EverQuest 1 for like 5 years, had no problem zoning...actually the game would suck with out it because you damn near could not drop aggro unless you were an FD class
In my own opinion i do not think instancing is all that bad...i mean i played EverQuest 1 for like 5 years, had no problem zoning...actually the game would suck with out it because you damn near could not drop aggro unless you were an FD class
TRAAAIN!!!1!!
Can you spare a plat for a newbie please, pretty please?
______________________________
The Sceptics, yes they're special but we've need them to.. I guess.
And if they're put more effort MMORPG.com can create a 'Team Sceptic'
and send them to the Special Olympus.