Those screens of lotro look like AA switched off too-so they actually look even better and smoother than that. Turbine did a sterling job on the visuals.
Not sure if i took them with AA on or off but remember to click the pictures to go their place on imageshack and then click them once more to see their original size that is 1664x984.
If you just click them once it sure looks like i took them with AA off but clicking them to their original size smooths out some of the edges.
And to page.
Yes it's possible to fiddle around with a lot of the graphical settings so you can play it on a pretty old rig and it still looks pretty ok even on low settings.
I will try later today to make a screenie where i'm on lowest settings possible and then the highest settings my PC can handle.
AOC looks good so far, except for the female toons that look horrid. I can appreciate multiple art styles, but one thing I can not tolerate is an art style done poorly, and the females in AOC are really bad. Either that, or the person making the toons and taking the screenshots are trying intentionally to make the ugliest toons they can.
This is not a shot at AoC. I played most all MMO's, at least the heavy hitters. And I spent most all day outside but I was thinking about graphics and how far they had advanced in the last few years, and my OPINION is not very far. WoW= cartoon EQ2= a little better, but something just seems off Vanguard=same as EQ2 D&D= a little better, but thats just me Lotro= same as WoW, but I guess it got better from what they say ( kind of smart, by doing it with a patch ) Tabula Rase=same as EQ2 but the terrain is not as flat From old to new they just don't seem to get much better, Warhammer seems as if there playing the safe road and just do the WoW thing, BUT Age of Conan is trying to give what a lot of people are screaming for high end graphics. And of coarse I'm not a dev., but to do this it seems as if they have to have smaller zone's and load times and maybe even walls, like a lot of off-line RPG's and they just were not prepared for people to not except that. So I guess technology is not their yet, maybe not even close. So i guess they have to make a choice. I guess in 2008 good graphics still comes with a price tag.
LOTRO is far better then WoW. It has very good graphics. They did a good job using the "asian" method. More effort on textures then on 3D models. They have a very good lightning in their engine. The only "negative" point are their blending trees. But after a few hours you dont recognize them anymore. And performance is very good.
Vangaurd is nowhere near EQ2. Vanguard was never really finsished. But the finished parts are very good. They have excellent textures and models. Just not everywhere. And the lightning of the modified unreal engine is not very good for outdoors tbh.
EQ2's engine is old and a mess. It was build around a nvidia3 chip and does havily use the CPU. There is a discussion about it, and a developer said that a lot of code has to be rewritten to utilize modern GPUs and less CPU. However, the engine is able to do very good graphics. Just SOE has to stick to the appearance of the 2004 release. Kurnak could look far better, but it wouldnt fit to the rest of the game. Although Kurnak does look much better in some cases.
It will take a few years to have a mmo in a quality like the final fantasy movie. However, games will always have a little cartoony touch. This is a psychologial thing. To much realism is not good for a game.
One last thing before i go to bed, I understand that if needed you can lower the lotro settings so any computer can play it. However i'm not sure.
Here is an example of 4 settings in the battleground from very high-medium-low-very low.
I resized all 4 pictures and merged them into one so you can't see the original size but it still gives you an idea how much you can raise/lower the graphics to suit your PC.
At Medium settings(the one top right),most PC's today can play with 30+ fps no problem.
I really hope that Funcom has a graphic engine that is as polished as Turbines when it comes to quality/performance.
AOC looks good so far, except for the female toons that look horrid. I can appreciate multiple art styles, but one thing I can not tolerate is an art style done poorly, and the females in AOC are really bad. Either that, or the person making the toons and taking the screenshots are trying intentionally to make the ugliest toons they can.
There are screenshots with old and new female characters on them. Dont mix them up. And... well.. everyone has his own idea about a good looking woman. The story is as old as mankind
you got that right but it's also an old engine Turbine is using.It's their old Asherons Call II engine.Amazing what they have done with that old engine.
I tried crysis btw but my PC choked so bad i thought it would explode.That game sure requires a lot of PC power.
I got a medium system but couldn't run Crysis even on lowest settings with a reasonable FPS.
Intel Duo 2,4 Ghz
2 Gm ram
256 MB Gfore 8600 gt.
I sure hope Funcom does a better job at optimising their engine than EA did
This is not a shot at AoC. I played most all MMO's, at least the heavy hitters. And I spent most all day outside but I was thinking about graphics and how far they had advanced in the last few years, and my OPINION is not very far. WoW= cartoon EQ2= a little better, but something just seems off Vanguard=same as EQ2 D&D= a little better, but thats just me Lotro= same as WoW, but I guess it got better from what they say ( kind of smart, by doing it with a patch ) Tabula Rase=same as EQ2 but the terrain is not as flat
If you think LotRO is in the same category as WoW and Vanguard with EQ2, all credibility in anything you've ever said is instantly gone. LotRO is a completely different style from WoW and honestly looks 100x better. As for Vanguard, if you can run the high graphics, the landscapes are better than in any MMO to date (keep in mind AoC isn't out yet).
We had already discussed your point as the thread evolved deeper SignusM, I sometimes do the same thing of only reading the OP then creating a reply if I have limited time. As a matter of fact I had learned that graphics had improved as of late.
I would also like to apologize to anyone who is offended with the game examples I had used, it's just the only way I could get a point across.
Please understand that the goal of the post is more about graphics and side effects of having better. And I guess Lotro had done things right.
Something to remember is that MMOs are limted by bandwith and even RvR and PvP participation limits. If a game is designed with large scale battles in mind with a few hundred people participating in the same area, something has to give. Wheter it's particle effects for weapons, facial expresions for your toons or simplified terrain, the information that needs to go back and forth between server and client has to be managed.
So, no, MMOs will never ever have the same eye-candy that a mostly single player game can have.
I was following a discussion about facial animations in the LOTRO forums a couple of weeks ago and ran into a response by one of the developers about what I just wrote above. He also went on to discuss the perceptual limits of realism that are desireable in games. Using the creepiness a lot of people experience with the Polar Express as an example he went on to talk about how when toons are too much like real humans we stop being happy about the similarities and start getting creeped-out by the differences that make the toon all of a sudden look like defective humans
This phenomenom even has a name: The Uncanny Valley. Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on it
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The engine of Lotro LOOKS very good, it looks better than these screenshots. Often you get a image that is ssooo cool... images that maybe you are the only one have see (??! nah!).
But the engine is limited. Theres like a limited "max high" "min height" or something. There can be also limits to fly, and stuff. Is a amazing engine, but a old one. ... maybe is the artwork that make it shine.
Anyway I don't like the style, is not reallly Lord of The Rings enough. Still look somewhat bland and generic.
While you might not like the cartoonish aspect of WoW, it's artwork is far superior to LOTRO. It is distinctive and gives the gaming world a lot of immersion.
I also think that AoC is looking a lot better than WAR for example because AoC also has distinctive artwork.
Both LOTRO, EQ2 and WAR have similar problem with their artwork. They look boxed, too sharp and in particulary when you look far they look very unpleasant. My main point is that graphics is a separate issue from artwork. The cartoon-like artwork what allows WoW to look both distinctive and good even with a lesser graphic quality gives it edge over games which aim for photorealism or close to it.
AoC does a good job bringing a tad bit of realism, but with distinctive artwork that is not so different from quite well drawn Conan comics.
Again you might hate how wow looks (I don't particulary like it myself), but I can understand why Blizzard chose to represent it that way.
Just compare the following to see the difference between artwork in WoW vs. AOC vs. WAR (in order)
Both AoC and WoW look quite distictive and pleasant to look where as the picture from WAR could be from any number of MMORPGs released over the past 6-8 or even from some that will be released soon.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
But getting back on track of the original topic can AoC maintain the above graphics and still have a seamless world like lotro does, and JUST as important can AoC settings be lowered so lesser computers play it like Lotro.
I'm not a big lotro fan, but they did do some amizing things that are state of the art as far as graphics. I think they did it progressively with patches over time but not sure.
well i been looking forward to playing this mainly becuz of the GFX even starting building my own for a hope at getting max setting. currently running a IP34 pro, 8800GTX, and a E8400. but after hearing about the so called "ghost wall" i started to look else were but still give the game a chance just in case people are exagerating a bit like they do about every game...
Forgive me for going offtopic again but i had to post some half decent LOTRO screenshots because the ones i have seen so far just dont do the game Justice at all.
Here is the thing, graphics are not the problem. AoC and DX10 has not doubt given us some of the best screen shots in gaming. The quality of the screen shots can not be denied. The problem is, to play the game at the quality of those screen shots, i.e. on max settings to play the game with the same graphic quality as the screen shots shown, you are going to need one hell of a system. Most people are not going to want to spend $1,500 to $3,000 to play a game on max settings. A lot of people bought systems and monitors one to two years ago in anticipation of this game. Lets just hope those same systems can handle the game with any upgrades Funcom has made to the engine or graphics since then.
Wrong. Have a very close friend who is in Aoc Beta so i have seen the game running, and the gameplay in AOC is done with high ql graphics wihtout any issues nor client lag. Movement fluid too.. truly amazing.
And you do not need an high end machine to run it properly btw. Thats a lie.
AOC will be the reference for future games in terms of graphic quality for some years y.
But getting back on track of the original topic can AoC maintain the above graphics and still have a seamless world like lotro does, and JUST as important can AoC settings be lowered so lesser computers play it like Lotro. I'm not a big lotro fan, but they did do some amizing things that are state of the art as far as graphics. I think they did it progressively with patches over time but not sure.
Erm, what seamless world?
One of the big gripes around is the fact AoC has instanced zones in the vein of GW. The quality of zones, the size is debatable until NDA is lifted but there is also a buzz about "channeled" play (meaning limited free romaing).
Personally I have a hard time beleiving what some people are posting about graphics being great and not very hardware demanding.
One of the big gripes around is the fact AoC has instanced zones in the vein of GW. The quality of zones, the size is debatable until NDA is lifted but there is also a buzz about "channeled" play (meaning limited free romaing).
Personally I have a hard time beleiving what some people are posting about graphics being great and not very hardware demanding.
Get lost troll.
AoC doesnt have instances, AoC has zones and there is a HUGE difference between the two, so stop spreading misinformation troll.
I like the Lotro graphics, I like the Aoc graphics too. I have a "monster" machine, so I've no problems to display superior graphics. Wow is just a bad joke, the graphics are supposed to appeal to younger people. Warhammer is going the same way (too bad, I like Warhammer, but the graphics, ewww). I know, the gameplay is important, but you cant play without graphics, only when you close your eyes )
While you might not like the cartoonish aspect of WoW, it's artwork is far superior to LOTRO. It is distinctive and gives the gaming world a lot of immersion. I also think that AoC is looking a lot better than WAR for example because AoC also has distinctive artwork. Both LOTRO, EQ2 and WAR have similar problem with their artwork. They look boxed, too sharp and in particulary when you look far they look very unpleasant. My main point is that graphics is a separate issue from artwork. The cartoon-like artwork what allows WoW to look both distinctive and good even with a lesser graphic quality gives it edge over games which aim for photorealism or close to it. AoC does a good job bringing a tad bit of realism, but with distinctive artwork that is not so different from quite well drawn Conan comics. Again you might hate how wow looks (I don't particulary like it myself), but I can understand why Blizzard chose to represent it that way. Just compare the following to see the difference between artwork in WoW vs. AOC vs. WAR (in order) Both AoC and WoW look quite distictive and pleasant to look where as the picture from WAR could be from any number of MMORPGs released over the past 6-8 or even from some that will be released soon.
Interesting comment. Hope you are right. A smooth and pretty game (AoC) could be interesting.
One of the big gripes around is the fact AoC has instanced zones in the vein of GW. The quality of zones, the size is debatable until NDA is lifted but there is also a buzz about "channeled" play (meaning limited free romaing).
Personally I have a hard time beleiving what some people are posting about graphics being great and not very hardware demanding.
Get lost troll.
AoC doesnt have instances, AoC has zones and there is a HUGE difference between the two, so stop spreading misinformation troll.
GW...******* *****
Hmm, let us see, an enligtened response. Definitelly a plus.
AoC, by its own official forums, have zones separated by a loading screen so how does that make a "seamless" world? Instances might be small like in WoW (at least soem of them), zones in AoC might be large but they function on the same principle. You load to zone into one, you load to zone into other so I fail to see such a HUGE difference.
And this is why I prefer to hear naysayers - fanbois have a tendency to glue to one aspect of the game and then downplay or ignore possible issues. I don't beleive the hype or the slanders however I heard enough to encourage me to wait for a free trial.
It is not a seamless world and I in no way stated that. Also the world is not instanced and is nothing like Guild Wars and comparing the two is just trolling. Instance =/= zone
You have a very interesting defintion of trolling. Sorry but the concept does remind me of GW zones.
Instance = zone
Each to its own though I suspect you are up in arms against anything that is not 101% worship of yet unreleased AoC.
Comments
If you just click them once it sure looks like i took them with AA off but clicking them to their original size smooths out some of the edges.
And to page.
Yes it's possible to fiddle around with a lot of the graphical settings so you can play it on a pretty old rig and it still looks pretty ok even on low settings.
I will try later today to make a screenie where i'm on lowest settings possible and then the highest settings my PC can handle.
___________________________________________
AOC looks good so far, except for the female toons that look horrid. I can appreciate multiple art styles, but one thing I can not tolerate is an art style done poorly, and the females in AOC are really bad. Either that, or the person making the toons and taking the screenshots are trying intentionally to make the ugliest toons they can.
Vangaurd is nowhere near EQ2. Vanguard was never really finsished. But the finished parts are very good. They have excellent textures and models. Just not everywhere. And the lightning of the modified unreal engine is not very good for outdoors tbh.
EQ2's engine is old and a mess. It was build around a nvidia3 chip and does havily use the CPU. There is a discussion about it, and a developer said that a lot of code has to be rewritten to utilize modern GPUs and less CPU. However, the engine is able to do very good graphics. Just SOE has to stick to the appearance of the 2004 release. Kurnak could look far better, but it wouldnt fit to the rest of the game. Although Kurnak does look much better in some cases.
It will take a few years to have a mmo in a quality like the final fantasy movie. However, games will always have a little cartoony touch. This is a psychologial thing. To much realism is not good for a game.
I resized all 4 pictures and merged them into one so you can't see the original size but it still gives you an idea how much you can raise/lower the graphics to suit your PC.
At Medium settings(the one top right),most PC's today can play with 30+ fps no problem.
I really hope that Funcom has a graphic engine that is as polished as Turbines when it comes to quality/performance.
Can't wait for May 20th.
___________________________________________
^ It's no crysis.
There are screenshots with old and new female characters on them. Dont mix them up. And... well.. everyone has his own idea about a good looking woman. The story is as old as mankind
you got that right but it's also an old engine Turbine is using.It's their old Asherons Call II engine.Amazing what they have done with that old engine.
I tried crysis btw but my PC choked so bad i thought it would explode.That game sure requires a lot of PC power.
I got a medium system but couldn't run Crysis even on lowest settings with a reasonable FPS.
Intel Duo 2,4 Ghz
2 Gm ram
256 MB Gfore 8600 gt.
I sure hope Funcom does a better job at optimising their engine than EA did
___________________________________________
k lotr is pretyt good looking, but wow aint b ad.
Look at this great video guys:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31006.html . It is the best they can do for the graphics of AoC for the moment.
If you think LotRO is in the same category as WoW and Vanguard with EQ2, all credibility in anything you've ever said is instantly gone. LotRO is a completely different style from WoW and honestly looks 100x better. As for Vanguard, if you can run the high graphics, the landscapes are better than in any MMO to date (keep in mind AoC isn't out yet).
Darkfall Travelogues!
We had already discussed your point as the thread evolved deeper SignusM, I sometimes do the same thing of only reading the OP then creating a reply if I have limited time. As a matter of fact I had learned that graphics had improved as of late.
I would also like to apologize to anyone who is offended with the game examples I had used, it's just the only way I could get a point across.
Please understand that the goal of the post is more about graphics and side effects of having better. And I guess Lotro had done things right.
Something to remember is that MMOs are limted by bandwith and even RvR and PvP participation limits. If a game is designed with large scale battles in mind with a few hundred people participating in the same area, something has to give. Wheter it's particle effects for weapons, facial expresions for your toons or simplified terrain, the information that needs to go back and forth between server and client has to be managed.
So, no, MMOs will never ever have the same eye-candy that a mostly single player game can have.
I was following a discussion about facial animations in the LOTRO forums a couple of weeks ago and ran into a response by one of the developers about what I just wrote above. He also went on to discuss the perceptual limits of realism that are desireable in games. Using the creepiness a lot of people experience with the Polar Express as an example he went on to talk about how when toons are too much like real humans we stop being happy about the similarities and start getting creeped-out by the differences that make the toon all of a sudden look like defective humans
This phenomenom even has a name: The Uncanny Valley. Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The engine of Lotro LOOKS very good, it looks better than these screenshots. Often you get a image that is ssooo cool... images that maybe you are the only one have see (??! nah!).
But the engine is limited. Theres like a limited "max high" "min height" or something. There can be also limits to fly, and stuff. Is a amazing engine, but a old one. ... maybe is the artwork that make it shine.
Anyway I don't like the style, is not reallly Lord of The Rings enough. Still look somewhat bland and generic.
While you might not like the cartoonish aspect of WoW, it's artwork is far superior to LOTRO. It is distinctive and gives the gaming world a lot of immersion.
I also think that AoC is looking a lot better than WAR for example because AoC also has distinctive artwork.
Both LOTRO, EQ2 and WAR have similar problem with their artwork. They look boxed, too sharp and in particulary when you look far they look very unpleasant. My main point is that graphics is a separate issue from artwork. The cartoon-like artwork what allows WoW to look both distinctive and good even with a lesser graphic quality gives it edge over games which aim for photorealism or close to it.
AoC does a good job bringing a tad bit of realism, but with distinctive artwork that is not so different from quite well drawn Conan comics.
Again you might hate how wow looks (I don't particulary like it myself), but I can understand why Blizzard chose to represent it that way.
Just compare the following to see the difference between artwork in WoW vs. AOC vs. WAR (in order)
Both AoC and WoW look quite distictive and pleasant to look where as the picture from WAR could be from any number of MMORPGs released over the past 6-8 or even from some that will be released soon.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
But getting back on track of the original topic can AoC maintain the above graphics and still have a seamless world like lotro does, and JUST as important can AoC settings be lowered so lesser computers play it like Lotro.
I'm not a big lotro fan, but they did do some amizing things that are state of the art as far as graphics. I think they did it progressively with patches over time but not sure.
well i been looking forward to playing this mainly becuz of the GFX even starting building my own for a hope at getting max setting.
currently running a IP34 pro, 8800GTX, and a E8400.
but after hearing about the so called "ghost wall" i started to look else were but still give the game a chance just in case people are exagerating a bit like they do about every game...
Forgive me for going offtopic again but i had to post some half decent LOTRO screenshots because the ones i have seen so far just dont do the game Justice at all.
DirectX 10 Screenshot Winners: Week 1!
DirectX 10 Screenshot Winners: Week 2!
DirectX 10 Screenshot Winners: Week 3!
DirectX 10 Screenshot Winners: Week 4!
The Shire 1
The Shire 2
Wrong. Have a very close friend who is in Aoc Beta so i have seen the game running, and the gameplay in AOC is done with high ql graphics wihtout any issues nor client lag. Movement fluid too.. truly amazing.
And you do not need an high end machine to run it properly btw. Thats a lie.
AOC will be the reference for future games in terms of graphic quality for some years y.
One of the big gripes around is the fact AoC has instanced zones in the vein of GW. The quality of zones, the size is debatable until NDA is lifted but there is also a buzz about "channeled" play (meaning limited free romaing).
Personally I have a hard time beleiving what some people are posting about graphics being great and not very hardware demanding.
Get lost troll.
AoC doesnt have instances, AoC has zones and there is a HUGE difference between the two, so stop spreading misinformation troll.
GW...******* *****
I like the Lotro graphics, I like the Aoc graphics too. I have a "monster" machine, so I've no problems to display superior graphics. Wow is just a bad joke, the graphics are supposed to appeal to younger people. Warhammer is going the same way (too bad, I like Warhammer, but the graphics, ewww). I know, the gameplay is important, but you cant play without graphics, only when you close your eyes )
Interesting comment. Hope you are right. A smooth and pretty game (AoC) could be interesting.
Get lost troll.
AoC doesnt have instances, AoC has zones and there is a HUGE difference between the two, so stop spreading misinformation troll.
GW...******* *****
Hmm, let us see, an enligtened response. Definitelly a plus.
AoC, by its own official forums, have zones separated by a loading screen so how does that make a "seamless" world? Instances might be small like in WoW (at least soem of them), zones in AoC might be large but they function on the same principle. You load to zone into one, you load to zone into other so I fail to see such a HUGE difference.
And this is why I prefer to hear naysayers - fanbois have a tendency to glue to one aspect of the game and then downplay or ignore possible issues. I don't beleive the hype or the slanders however I heard enough to encourage me to wait for a free trial.
It is not a seamless world and I in no way stated that.
Also the world is not instanced and is nothing like Guild Wars and comparing the two is just trolling.
Instance =/= zone
You have a very interesting defintion of trolling. Sorry but the concept does remind me of GW zones.
Instance = zone
Each to its own though I suspect you are up in arms against anything that is not 101% worship of yet unreleased AoC.