Why retards insist on posting new threads titled the 'graffics suxxorz!" is beyond me. It's only going to be proven wrong again and again. There is a fantasy book quality to the art in Warhammer, and it is far more gritty than WoW. Armor shines in the moonlight, fog rolls heavy above the Phoenix Gate in its huge sweeping arch of a hallway. Trolls hurl bolders from mountain tops. Dragons fly down from citidaels. I dont know how any of Warhammer can be concieved as poor art or graphics. I sure as hell optimized my settings by putting on AA and AF and installing the overall polish added with the installation discs over beta. I guess Ill just post some more screenshots for the Troll to gasp at. Hmn..
No I think you are trying to avoid the truth with excuses for gameplay, no one expects or needs this game to have very high standard graphics ~(no we are not talking about design here..thats different, cartoon looking guys are fine). But when they set the standard i am affraid it is just too low, and with no option for those with better machines to get a better experience. The ballance is just off, its not right, not if they wanted to keep this game alive for a long time with a large player base, i think they got it wrong...sorry (or they got it right on the money..in terms of profit for effort and projected longevity, you know..those decisions those white colar a holes make)
Take a deep breathe now. . .
If you don't like the graphics don't play the game, its as simple as that.
I think Mythic made the right decision with their graphic's implementation. They have already mentioned they were working on including AA, AF, and better clip plane settings once everything settles down. Until then people will just have to force it in their video settings.
Hmm..
I will persevere with the game anyway to get the most out of it and see if the gameplay can win the day, but that does not change the opinion that i beleive they could have done a better job and not affected perfomance from the off.
I am not here to bash WAR as a whole...just commenting on the thread topic, the graphics are poor to what i would expect and think they could have pushed it more..that is all.
I do have to agree. Mythic could have done better with the graphics but what we have now is what we get. I enjoy it the way it is since we can easily cram a ton of people on screen and have very little lag. The graphics may not be on par with AoC but they are far better than WoW's based on polly counts.
If Mythic was able to introduce better shadowing and lighting most of the complains about pastel colors and flat textures would fade out.
It's a Jeep thing. . . _______ |___| \_______/ = |||||| = |X| \*........*/ |X| |X|_________|X| You wouldn't understand
They wanted to make it accessible to people with 24 month old PCs. And they did. You can play it on a end 2005 machine (including the fact that this machine was high end then) and it is playable with small loading spikes. Try this with Age of Conan mass battles, or LotRo mass battles.
They wanted the game to match the Warhammer-IP. Designwise, they succeeded 100%. Bashing the game because it is what it is, Warhammer, is just invalid.
About the only thing that objectively could have been better is the animations and character diversity. Still, animations are #2 behind WoW in my book, including Age of Conan, mainly because AoC features only hack, slash, cast in 10 000 bazillion different ways.
Some people seem to have real problems with the game, my guess its specific to some systems, I run at constant 60 FPS everywhere(everything maxed out) other than scenarios, for some reason it stutters ALOT on scenarios.
Hmm, can it be the drivers of certain graphics cards that don't work so well with WARs engine? Either that or lack of CPU power or memory. You should make a thread about it and compare systems...
WARs graphics could be better, it wouldn't kill them with some better textures... Spellborn is releasing soon and it's graphics is lower than AoC but quite a step up from WAR and LOTRO. If you aim to high many can't play it and if you aim too low the game feel outdated, you have to find the right in between and WAR is a bit low for my taste.
Graphics is just 1 part of a game, theres gameplay, art, combat and so on also but all things matters and I like games that looks good, but I do have the budget to upgrade my computer whenever needed. Everybody don't so I not complaining that they make games for the fellows with low systems too, but I always feels a bit dissapointed when my new game don't looks awesome. But everyone likes different kinds of games and many players cares little about graphics soyou just have to find the games that speaks to you.
Me? I'll start Spellborn instead of WAR as soon as it releases, I like a lot of things with that game
So.. Now the people with high-end pc's are complaining about games with low requirements?... Really, bad textures are good, as NO (really, no) can process 100+ people with 512x512 or even 1024x1024 textures, with normal/bump maps. And you can't really enjoy the scenery when 100+ people are bashing each other's heads, so there's no real need for good graphics.
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
Originally posted by Meridion They wanted the game to match the Warhammer-IP. Designwise, they succeeded 100%. Bashing the game because it is what it is, Warhammer, is just invalid. M
Hmm, I don't know... Ever played "Warhammer fantasy roleplaying game"? WAR captures the tabletop very well but not the RPG game, the dark horror feeling isn't there in the same way.
Some of it is due to WARs static character system, in the RPG characters change for both good and bad, you can change careers but if your'e unlucky you could mutate or even goes insane (last things happens quite often, 2 players in my group got a lobotomy to cool down from the things they seen, not the brightesst idea they had....).
Off coarse many prefer the tabletop but Warhammer is both. If you havn't tried the RPG game, it is really great.
Some people seem to have real problems with the game, my guess its specific to some systems, I run at constant 60 FPS everywhere(everything maxed out) other than scenarios, for some reason it stutters ALOT on scenarios.
WARs graphics could be better, it wouldn't kill them with some better textures... Spellborn is releasing soon and it's graphics is lower than AoC but quite a step up from WAR and LOTRO. If you aim to high many can't play it and if you aim too low the game feel outdated, you have to find the right in between and WAR is a bit low for my taste.
Me? I'll start Spellborn instead of WAR as soon as it releases, I like a lot of things with that game
Lotro?! Only AoC can match Lotro's graphics, I suppose you just never downloaded the high quality textures.
But I do agree Spellborn's graphics have a nice feel to it. They're so warm and yellowy. Too bad it won't have open (world PvP), structured PvP made Guild Wars an elitist game, I'll stay away from communities like that in the future...
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
The game looks fine. Especially when you consider you will be having a lot of people on screen battling it out in RVR. Honestly, there seems to be a huge segment of people here that value form over substance.
The other day I was doing some T2 RVR and there were 60+ people duking it out for control of a keep. Except for a little bit of lag here and there the game ran fine. But can you imagine what would happen if it had AOC graphics: 1fps.
Lotro?! Only AoC can match Lotro's graphics, I suppose you just never downloaded the high quality textures.
Not exacly
Lotro has some good landscapes and this is it, Vanguard and even Everquest 2 already have better graphics (this was mentioned even in the Gamezone review)
The main issue in Lotro is the character design, ultra simple in technical graphics and art style (pretty bad art if you compare with all others Lotr artistic creations).
Artstyle and visuals in Lotro doesnt match, you cant put a goofy character in the middle of a realistic forest/lake, the proof of this is, almost all "great screenshots" of Lotro are only forests and lakes, no characters or dungeons...This is really a shame as there are a lot of good artistic creations from good artists inspired by Tolkien´s work... it is hard to understand why Turbine came up with so bad characters in Lotro as they did a good job with D&D...
Warhammer online could get a bit more of shadding and filters in the graphic settings menu, but the art style is so solid and expressive that made up for it.
When you get games like Age of Conan, Warhammer and even WoW (it is hard for me to say that as I really do not enjoy the art from WoW) you can see a very unique and solid art style where everything matches, from trees to armors... Lotro failed at that.
When you get games like Age of Conan and Everquest 2 you can see ultra realistic animations based on motion capture and a good combination of normal and bump mapping, Lotro also failed at that...
When we realize, Lotro is a simple game in the graphic side, and has a bad artstyle where landscapes ( that does look good ) doesnt match the goofy characters and all the rest, we can see Turbine was not successful creating a solid expressive world as we can see in Warhammer and Age of Conan.
How much i try to like this game, whenever i log in i see no Bump Mapping or any other great Grafic effects. My 9600GT runs this games with Max FPS all time which means the Engine is simply some years to old.
I was pretty dissapointed after paying 49 Euro (far to much), installing and then watching the grafics of this game
I think that even DAOC has a much better Athmosphere than Warhammer. This game feels cold.
The Textures are low-medium quality, theres no Texture setting. Instead high quality Models like Vanguard or AoC has i see horrible WoW grafic again.
Grafic is importand to me and Warhammer doesnt deliver good Grafic
p.s i know its all about gameplay for many of you guys, for me too, but i couldnt imagine that the grafics are so extremly bad....
I don't disagree with you at all that the gfx in WAR are in no way on par with a game like AoC, especially after a game like that adds in DirectX 10. I guess the only thing I can say is I do enjoy being able to pvp/pve at full speed with no lag issues at all. AoC is great to look at but very frustrating to play when you get alot of people in a pvp battle because the game lags to hell. I love great gfx but I will sacrifice some of my taste in pretty pictures for superior performance, especially when it comes to pvp. At some level I see WAR accomplishing what WoW has done by making the game available to a very large variety of user systems. WoW's graphics, even for the time when the game was released, were absolutely laughable. However, their goal was to create something that almost anyone can play even with very old machines. WAR went the same route. /shrug
One thing i had a few days ago. A friend, an avid WoW player, bought WAR to try it out, he wanted something different. He had a horrid time playing WAR, and complained it kept laggin where as WoW would run fine on his PC. I asked him when the last time he upgraded his PC was. He had last upgraded his PC when WoW was released. Geforce 5 series or perhaps the Geforce 6 if I am recalling things correctly. I am very surprised, and impressed it has lasted this long.
I'm not sure what his ram/processor specs are but to still be using a Geforce series 5 or 6 is rough. The upgrades to gfx card onboard ram speeds alone in the geforce 8 series could make a huge difference in all of his gaming and the 7 or 8 series does not cost all that much. Less than $100 US?
Lets get some perspective here. I in no way am saying War is a bad game, or that the art sucks. They boath have very sound and strong art direction, but AOC wins hands down in the Detail catagory. And its not "Just higher rez textures" working here.
Dude, let me show you some perspective here.
Win hand down in Detail catagory you said? Not even close my friend, not even close.
I don't know..is it just me..WoW is in a different league here...don't put them side by side. As before, not talking about plain simple cartoon characters, its all the animation, the way they interact with the world, how they look when preforming actions on other players..the PvE monsters the same, static, uninteresting..it just seems cheap, shody, basic. Maybe they are rose tinted specs..but i am still pretty sure my SNES did have better graphics.
I agree there, but its not just war. I like how war looks, I like how lotro looks. I absolutely loved the look of AOC, however none of those games come even close to the fluidity of the nimation WoW has ... after playing Wow, all other games seem so stiff to me. I get used to it, and not notice it after a while, but hats off to wow in that department.
Well the only thing about graphics that annoys me in war is when u se monsters or chars from far away and they move kinda weird (theyl probable fix that ) but other than that i think that war has one of the best graphics of all mmos not good as AoC but the player characters are way better that i dont know Lotr or something and the gameplay wuhu lol and i should know about the graphics i play Crysis warhead on max settings lol
One thing i had a few days ago. A friend, an avid WoW player, bought WAR to try it out, he wanted something different. He had a horrid time playing WAR, and complained it kept laggin where as WoW would run fine on his PC. I asked him when the last time he upgraded his PC was. He had last upgraded his PC when WoW was released. Geforce 5 series or perhaps the Geforce 6 if I am recalling things correctly. I am very surprised, and impressed it has lasted this long.
I'm not sure what his ram/processor specs are but to still be using a Geforce series 5 or 6 is rough. The upgrades to gfx card onboard ram speeds alone in the geforce 8 series could make a huge difference in all of his gaming and the 7 or 8 series does not cost all that much. Less than $100 US?
I must also say that he doesn't play anything but WoW on his PC, so never bothered to update. I showed him the cost of a few decent video cards and he said he would think about it.
He just didn't like the idea of upgrading for a game (Though he bought the whole computer just for WoW)
WAR has bmp mapping. They are just less liberal and more subtle with its use than some games who completely go overboard with it and bump map every damn thing to the point of unbelievability.
LOTRO also uses bmp mapping in subtle ways, leadinigmany to think they dont' even have bmp mapping at all. They do.
graphically, war is up to date. Textures are generally sharp and crisp and the lighting is good as is the atmosphere and zone design themes.
OP may be confusing a preference of art style with technical feat. WAR doesn't try to be technically good graphically. It is up to date. It is the art style that tends to make people think it is old, when it is not.
The textures in high settings look bad, blurry, like made in a lower resolution. Playing at 1920*1200, I understand tho, that people playing at 800x600 might see it crisp, but it looses a lot of quality on the resolution I play.
The character models and faces should be improved, people are looking at their avatars 24/7, landscapes aren't as important and can be kept as they are now, animations could be less massive to improve performance, a BW AOE spell lags the crap outta everyone in a siege, get 10 of them doing the same and you get a slideshow, they could cut from some places to add in others.
Well I did alot of moaning in this thread yeaterday so I better post in here my findings from last night aswell, after reading on these forums about bumping up the AA etc.. outside of the game I have to say I saw a huge improvement and am quite satisfied with the results now, there are still some animations that make my face look like i stuck a lemon whole in my mouth, but overall its looking good and I can finally concentrate on the gameplay alone....
Talking of which, i discovered alchemy (i cant remeber exact name sorry :P) last night and was delighted to see that there is a level of knowledge you have to figure out for your self with what ingredients make what potion...brought me back about 20 years to Elvira mistress of the dark which used to completely baffle me.
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
There is no excuse for not letting us increase the textures even thou this game is aimed for battles in RvR.
It's just something this odd fanbase has made up to defend the lack of even close to something good looking.
Sure, make a game aimed for lesser computers , that's a good idea obviously But let the players that has hardware crank up the graphics as they please.
Even thou the game is NOT aimed for PvE there still is a large chunk of that going on, so why not let those players enjoy that.
This game looks real ugly even on highest possible setting.
Less graphic intensity is a good thing in a MMO.. if a game requires a state of the art computer to play smoothly it's going to turn off many players from the start a la Vanguard and cause the game to fail. Not having a $2000+ computer shouldn't prevent you from being able to play the latest MMO's competitively. if the graphics were any more intensive, large scale RvR would be unbearable for most PC's, i'm sure Mythic had that in mind when they designed the graphics, and for that reason and others the game is successful and has mass-appeal.. I like the fact that i'm able to play this game without issues on a $700 computer I bought 1-2 years ago, and have no problems at all with the graphics even on the lowest settings.
To be honest you just sound like a spoiled baby who is new to gaming in general..back in the day people were lucky to have 8-bit 2-D graphics on a computer, you should be thankful you're able to play a game this good.
Ok, YOU guys have not been to the real meat of battles when it gets really large with many people on screen. Now, force your card to 16xAA/AF, texture filtering, res on 1800x1600 and join RvR with many people (50+ simulatenously).
It's no lame excuse, not at all. Your rig will stutter, I own a 2 month old watercooled OCed E8400 @3,2 Ghz, brand new GTX280 1gigVRAM, 4 gig DDR1033, newly set up OS and the framerates drop to 34 in battles with 60+ people + sceenery on screen at the above settings. And no, my system does NOT have a hardware problem, I ram the ceiling in about every gfx benchmark there is, you guys have just not taken your game to the test and rolled into massive battles with it.
Stop diffaming people that state the valid argument, this game is as good looking as possible while maintaining a reasonable RvR performance for _every_ system.
The performance doesn't scale with the graphic quality, with these textures and polygons the game should run 400vs400 with no lag, but it doesn't.
L2 had way better textures (more crisp and defined) and the polygons were somehow similar. The curtomization was poor though, and that helped performance, customization in WAR isn't that extensive though.
Originally posted by Meridion Ok, YOU guys have not been to the real meat of battles when it gets really large with many people on screen. Now, force your card to 16xAA/AF, texture filtering, res on 1800x1600 and join RvR with many people (50+ simulatenously). It's no lame excuse, not at all. Your rig will stutter, I own a 2 month old watercooled OCed E8400 @3,2 Ghz, brand new GTX280 1gigVRAM, 4 gig DDR1033, newly set up OS and the framerates drop to 34 in battles with 60+ people + sceenery on screen at the above settings. And no, my system does NOT have a hardware problem, I ram the ceiling in about every gfx benchmark there is, you guys have just not taken your game to the test and rolled into massive battles with it. Stop diffaming people that state the valid argument, this game is as good looking as possible while maintaining a reasonable RvR performance for _every_ system. M
Sure, I agree, even your computer will bend in such intense battles, but that isn't the issue here at all.
In most games there is sliders that makes the graphics scale for better performance in battle, this is ofcourse in Warhammer's current setup aswell. but
That's also why there is no reason that you won't be able to crank up your graphics to make use of your watercooled comp higher than the current settings in situations where you are NOT fighting 100 players at once, or are you telling me that will never happen in Warhammer ?
The first 15 hours in the game I hardly had any PvP at all, part from some minor fights here and there, and this is what new players are greeted with, ugly bland and poor textures..
And no, this has NOTHING to do with artstyle, It looks just as It should in that department.
Comments
I thought the graphics were acceptable but I was expecting a little more considering this is 2008.
Why retards insist on posting new threads titled the 'graffics suxxorz!" is beyond me. It's only going to be proven wrong again and again. There is a fantasy book quality to the art in Warhammer, and it is far more gritty than WoW. Armor shines in the moonlight, fog rolls heavy above the Phoenix Gate in its huge sweeping arch of a hallway. Trolls hurl bolders from mountain tops. Dragons fly down from citidaels. I dont know how any of Warhammer can be concieved as poor art or graphics. I sure as hell optimized my settings by putting on AA and AF and installing the overall polish added with the installation discs over beta. I guess Ill just post some more screenshots for the Troll to gasp at. Hmn..
img241.imageshack.us/my.php
img241.imageshack.us/my.php
img204.imageshack.us/my.php
img402.imageshack.us/my.php
Further signs that these graphics are pretty damn good, my screenshots are throughout this thread:
www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/202972/page/1
All you're doing is creating good publicity for this game when you have false claims about it.
------------------------------
'Cry Havoc, and Let Loose the Dogs of WARRRRR!!!'
Take a deep breathe now. . .
If you don't like the graphics don't play the game, its as simple as that.
I think Mythic made the right decision with their graphic's implementation. They have already mentioned they were working on including AA, AF, and better clip plane settings once everything settles down. Until then people will just have to force it in their video settings.
Hmm..
I will persevere with the game anyway to get the most out of it and see if the gameplay can win the day, but that does not change the opinion that i beleive they could have done a better job and not affected perfomance from the off.
I am not here to bash WAR as a whole...just commenting on the thread topic, the graphics are poor to what i would expect and think they could have pushed it more..that is all.
I do have to agree. Mythic could have done better with the graphics but what we have now is what we get. I enjoy it the way it is since we can easily cram a ton of people on screen and have very little lag. The graphics may not be on par with AoC but they are far better than WoW's based on polly counts.
If Mythic was able to introduce better shadowing and lighting most of the complains about pastel colors and flat textures would fade out.
_______
|___
\_______/
=
|X| \*........*/ |X|
|X|_________|X|
You wouldn't understand
They wanted to make it accessible to people with 24 month old PCs. And they did. You can play it on a end 2005 machine (including the fact that this machine was high end then) and it is playable with small loading spikes. Try this with Age of Conan mass battles, or LotRo mass battles.
They wanted the game to match the Warhammer-IP. Designwise, they succeeded 100%. Bashing the game because it is what it is, Warhammer, is just invalid.
About the only thing that objectively could have been better is the animations and character diversity. Still, animations are #2 behind WoW in my book, including Age of Conan, mainly because AoC features only hack, slash, cast in 10 000 bazillion different ways.
M
Hmm, can it be the drivers of certain graphics cards that don't work so well with WARs engine? Either that or lack of CPU power or memory. You should make a thread about it and compare systems...
WARs graphics could be better, it wouldn't kill them with some better textures... Spellborn is releasing soon and it's graphics is lower than AoC but quite a step up from WAR and LOTRO. If you aim to high many can't play it and if you aim too low the game feel outdated, you have to find the right in between and WAR is a bit low for my taste.
Graphics is just 1 part of a game, theres gameplay, art, combat and so on also but all things matters and I like games that looks good, but I do have the budget to upgrade my computer whenever needed. Everybody don't so I not complaining that they make games for the fellows with low systems too, but I always feels a bit dissapointed when my new game don't looks awesome. But everyone likes different kinds of games and many players cares little about graphics soyou just have to find the games that speaks to you.
Me? I'll start Spellborn instead of WAR as soon as it releases, I like a lot of things with that game
So.. Now the people with high-end pc's are complaining about games with low requirements?... Really, bad textures are good, as NO (really, no) can process 100+ people with 512x512 or even 1024x1024 textures, with normal/bump maps. And you can't really enjoy the scenery when 100+ people are bashing each other's heads, so there's no real need for good graphics.
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
Hmm, I don't know... Ever played "Warhammer fantasy roleplaying game"? WAR captures the tabletop very well but not the RPG game, the dark horror feeling isn't there in the same way.
Some of it is due to WARs static character system, in the RPG characters change for both good and bad, you can change careers but if your'e unlucky you could mutate or even goes insane (last things happens quite often, 2 players in my group got a lobotomy to cool down from the things they seen, not the brightesst idea they had....).
Off coarse many prefer the tabletop but Warhammer is both. If you havn't tried the RPG game, it is really great.
WARs graphics could be better, it wouldn't kill them with some better textures... Spellborn is releasing soon and it's graphics is lower than AoC but quite a step up from WAR and LOTRO. If you aim to high many can't play it and if you aim too low the game feel outdated, you have to find the right in between and WAR is a bit low for my taste.
Me? I'll start Spellborn instead of WAR as soon as it releases, I like a lot of things with that game
Lotro?! Only AoC can match Lotro's graphics, I suppose you just never downloaded the high quality textures.
But I do agree Spellborn's graphics have a nice feel to it. They're so warm and yellowy. Too bad it won't have open (world PvP), structured PvP made Guild Wars an elitist game, I'll stay away from communities like that in the future...
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
The game looks fine. Especially when you consider you will be having a lot of people on screen battling it out in RVR. Honestly, there seems to be a huge segment of people here that value form over substance.
The other day I was doing some T2 RVR and there were 60+ people duking it out for control of a keep. Except for a little bit of lag here and there the game ran fine. But can you imagine what would happen if it had AOC graphics: 1fps.
Not exacly
Lotro has some good landscapes and this is it, Vanguard and even Everquest 2 already have better graphics (this was mentioned even in the Gamezone review)
The main issue in Lotro is the character design, ultra simple in technical graphics and art style (pretty bad art if you compare with all others Lotr artistic creations).
Artstyle and visuals in Lotro doesnt match, you cant put a goofy character in the middle of a realistic forest/lake, the proof of this is, almost all "great screenshots" of Lotro are only forests and lakes, no characters or dungeons...This is really a shame as there are a lot of good artistic creations from good artists inspired by Tolkien´s work... it is hard to understand why Turbine came up with so bad characters in Lotro as they did a good job with D&D...
Warhammer online could get a bit more of shadding and filters in the graphic settings menu, but the art style is so solid and expressive that made up for it.
When you get games like Age of Conan, Warhammer and even WoW (it is hard for me to say that as I really do not enjoy the art from WoW) you can see a very unique and solid art style where everything matches, from trees to armors... Lotro failed at that.
When you get games like Age of Conan and Everquest 2 you can see ultra realistic animations based on motion capture and a good combination of normal and bump mapping, Lotro also failed at that...
When we realize, Lotro is a simple game in the graphic side, and has a bad artstyle where landscapes ( that does look good ) doesnt match the goofy characters and all the rest, we can see Turbine was not successful creating a solid expressive world as we can see in Warhammer and Age of Conan.
...
I don't disagree with you at all that the gfx in WAR are in no way on par with a game like AoC, especially after a game like that adds in DirectX 10. I guess the only thing I can say is I do enjoy being able to pvp/pve at full speed with no lag issues at all. AoC is great to look at but very frustrating to play when you get alot of people in a pvp battle because the game lags to hell. I love great gfx but I will sacrifice some of my taste in pretty pictures for superior performance, especially when it comes to pvp. At some level I see WAR accomplishing what WoW has done by making the game available to a very large variety of user systems. WoW's graphics, even for the time when the game was released, were absolutely laughable. However, their goal was to create something that almost anyone can play even with very old machines. WAR went the same route. /shrug
One thing i had a few days ago.
A friend, an avid WoW player, bought WAR to try it out, he wanted something different.
He had a horrid time playing WAR, and complained it kept laggin where as WoW would run fine on his PC.
I asked him when the last time he upgraded his PC was.
He had last upgraded his PC when WoW was released.
Geforce 5 series or perhaps the Geforce 6 if I am recalling things correctly. I am very surprised, and impressed it has lasted this long.
I'm not sure what his ram/processor specs are but to still be using a Geforce series 5 or 6 is rough. The upgrades to gfx card onboard ram speeds alone in the geforce 8 series could make a huge difference in all of his gaming and the 7 or 8 series does not cost all that much. Less than $100 US?
Dude, let me show you some perspective here.
Win hand down in Detail catagory you said? Not even close my friend, not even close.
I agree there, but its not just war. I like how war looks, I like how lotro looks. I absolutely loved the look of AOC, however none of those games come even close to the fluidity of the nimation WoW has ... after playing Wow, all other games seem so stiff to me. I get used to it, and not notice it after a while, but hats off to wow in that department.
Well the only thing about graphics that annoys me in war is when u se monsters or chars from far away and they move kinda weird (theyl probable fix that ) but other than that i think that war has one of the best graphics of all mmos not good as AoC but the player characters are way better that i dont know Lotr or something and the gameplay wuhu lol and i should know about the graphics i play Crysis warhead on max settings lol
I'm not sure what his ram/processor specs are but to still be using a Geforce series 5 or 6 is rough. The upgrades to gfx card onboard ram speeds alone in the geforce 8 series could make a huge difference in all of his gaming and the 7 or 8 series does not cost all that much. Less than $100 US?
I must also say that he doesn't play anything but WoW on his PC, so never bothered to update. I showed him the cost of a few decent video cards and he said he would think about it.
He just didn't like the idea of upgrading for a game (Though he bought the whole computer just for WoW)
WAR has bmp mapping. They are just less liberal and more subtle with its use than some games who completely go overboard with it and bump map every damn thing to the point of unbelievability.
LOTRO also uses bmp mapping in subtle ways, leadinigmany to think they dont' even have bmp mapping at all. They do.
graphically, war is up to date. Textures are generally sharp and crisp and the lighting is good as is the atmosphere and zone design themes.
OP may be confusing a preference of art style with technical feat. WAR doesn't try to be technically good graphically. It is up to date. It is the art style that tends to make people think it is old, when it is not.
The textures in high settings look bad, blurry, like made in a lower resolution. Playing at 1920*1200, I understand tho, that people playing at 800x600 might see it crisp, but it looses a lot of quality on the resolution I play.
The character models and faces should be improved, people are looking at their avatars 24/7, landscapes aren't as important and can be kept as they are now, animations could be less massive to improve performance, a BW AOE spell lags the crap outta everyone in a siege, get 10 of them doing the same and you get a slideshow, they could cut from some places to add in others.
Well I did alot of moaning in this thread yeaterday so I better post in here my findings from last night aswell, after reading on these forums about bumping up the AA etc.. outside of the game I have to say I saw a huge improvement and am quite satisfied with the results now, there are still some animations that make my face look like i stuck a lemon whole in my mouth, but overall its looking good and I can finally concentrate on the gameplay alone....
Talking of which, i discovered alchemy (i cant remeber exact name sorry :P) last night and was delighted to see that there is a level of knowledge you have to figure out for your self with what ingredients make what potion...brought me back about 20 years to Elvira mistress of the dark which used to completely baffle me.
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
There is no excuse for not letting us increase the textures even thou this game is aimed for battles in RvR.
It's just something this odd fanbase has made up to defend the lack of even close to something good looking.
Sure, make a game aimed for lesser computers , that's a good idea obviously
But let the players that has hardware crank up the graphics as they please.
Even thou the game is NOT aimed for PvE there still is a large chunk of that going on, so why not let those players enjoy that.
This game looks real ugly even on highest possible setting.
/junker
Less graphic intensity is a good thing in a MMO.. if a game requires a state of the art computer to play smoothly it's going to turn off many players from the start a la Vanguard and cause the game to fail. Not having a $2000+ computer shouldn't prevent you from being able to play the latest MMO's competitively. if the graphics were any more intensive, large scale RvR would be unbearable for most PC's, i'm sure Mythic had that in mind when they designed the graphics, and for that reason and others the game is successful and has mass-appeal.. I like the fact that i'm able to play this game without issues on a $700 computer I bought 1-2 years ago, and have no problems at all with the graphics even on the lowest settings.
To be honest you just sound like a spoiled baby who is new to gaming in general..back in the day people were lucky to have 8-bit 2-D graphics on a computer, you should be thankful you're able to play a game this good.
Ok, YOU guys have not been to the real meat of battles when it gets really large with many people on screen. Now, force your card to 16xAA/AF, texture filtering, res on 1800x1600 and join RvR with many people (50+ simulatenously).
It's no lame excuse, not at all. Your rig will stutter, I own a 2 month old watercooled OCed E8400 @3,2 Ghz, brand new GTX280 1gigVRAM, 4 gig DDR1033, newly set up OS and the framerates drop to 34 in battles with 60+ people + sceenery on screen at the above settings. And no, my system does NOT have a hardware problem, I ram the ceiling in about every gfx benchmark there is, you guys have just not taken your game to the test and rolled into massive battles with it.
Stop diffaming people that state the valid argument, this game is as good looking as possible while maintaining a reasonable RvR performance for _every_ system.
M
The performance doesn't scale with the graphic quality, with these textures and polygons the game should run 400vs400 with no lag, but it doesn't.
L2 had way better textures (more crisp and defined) and the polygons were somehow similar. The curtomization was poor though, and that helped performance, customization in WAR isn't that extensive though.
Sure, I agree, even your computer will bend in such intense battles, but that isn't the issue here at all.
In most games there is sliders that makes the graphics scale for better performance in battle, this is ofcourse in Warhammer's current setup aswell. but
That's also why there is no reason that you won't be able to crank up your graphics to make use of your watercooled comp higher than the current settings in situations where you are NOT fighting 100 players at once, or are you telling me that will never happen in Warhammer ?
The first 15 hours in the game I hardly had any PvP at all, part from some minor fights here and there, and this is what new players are greeted with, ugly bland and poor textures..
And no, this has NOTHING to do with artstyle, It looks just as It should in that department.
/junker