The game is still in Alpha. I think for an Alpha game, the graphics look pretty good.
Closed Beta right now. Devs would like to release in Q2 2009.
The devs have stated time and time again, that they wont force a release date. The have stated on their forums that it will be released when its done, and not before then. Seeing how its already April, and no date has been released yet, I don't think Q2 is an accurate estimate.
Once the date is set, company still needs time to push sales/ advertise/ etc.. Build the pre-sales, get the game reviews, etc.
And FYI, graphics are not everything. I still prefer the game play of EQ1, to that of WoW, EQ2, AoC, Warhammer, and every other game Ive played over the years. Spit and polish on a bad game, is still a bad game. Maybe you need the super graphics, to justify the cost of your computer system, but me, I prefer a good game over high end graphics.
"Graphics aren't important to me. blah blah blah, I'm not going to play this game because of the Graphics."
A real walking contradiction.
The game looks alright graphically, however the animation team did a great job on making everything feel proper.
If there was one thing about the graphics that annoyed me is the fact that way back when, when I first heard about this game, all the character's heads looked Disproportionally huge compared to the bodies.
After watching the latest videos, and the tutorial video, I'm more pumped than ever.
In beta testing, you might not be able to see everything. In alpha testing, there are an even greater chance that some of the release features are withheld. Graphics is one.
For an engine not optimised, with developer and bug tracer built in, performance is an issue. IF that stage of testing does not involve graphics and performance, it makes sense to tone down the graphics or set a cap at low resolution so that the users will be focused on testing the rest of the game.
Judging a game at alpha stage is way too early, and judging on graphics before release?
You know ppl keep bringing up AoC when they talk about graphics, honestly I rather would have played it if it looked like this as long as it could have been just as fun and not suck like gameplay in AoC did...lol
I think the graphics look at least as good as AOC. What more do you want? Then on top of that it is one big seamless world which even WOW doesn't have.
The reason anyone would make a game with graphics that are slightly older is so that more people can play it. Bigger player base = more money.
look at war and darkfall when they tried that and they failed specialy darkfall
Then look at the most popular MMOs out today...
WoW
Linage I and II
FFXI
... name a few others that have over a million subs.. they all have low graphics
well those games are all 4-5 years duh:P think a little and aoc only failed cause they had noob devs
No, not because of "noob" devs, wich they certainly aren't. More becasue of lack of good management and leadership, also due to the fact that FC thought it was a better idea to concentrate on beautiful graphics with "phat loot", nipples and "kewl mounts" instead of actual content and a great game, wich it could've been. The world of Hyboria has a grweat history and FC decided to focus on...nipples...THAT'S why FC's stocks went down 99%.
Anyway, back to subject. I believe that Fallen Earth is going to be a great game, it has insane possibilities. Anyone who loved SWG will probably love this game as well. I'm sure of it.
H O R R I B L E , as you put it Draccan, is beyond pushing it. This game looks pretty decent all things considered.
Let's also take a few things into account here:
The graphics are more than enough and will allow for better gaming mechanics such as, Larger, Seamless worlds and more things on screen at once.
Fallout 3 has good graphics but if you pay attention you'll notice that they are not anything too special. They use the Havok engine which allows for a good middle-ground of functionality and appearance and works especially well in dystopian settings. I'm not sure what engine Fallen Earth is using, but I'm only using an example.
Again, you're pushing it Draccan. I remember seeing you all over the place months and months ago when I was on the forums. I haven't been here in a while, but I'm back and distinctly remember your over-ambitious trolling for bashing games that you either don't agree with or put down because you're a devotee of another game.
Graphics is the single most OVERATED stat used to determine a pass or fail with a game....unless to dense to see past "the pretty lights" and are content to stand ingame looking at swaying grass (god how the masses are so easily ammused).
The graphiocs are more than adequate to effectivly portray the sentiments of a harsh and dangerouse enviroment (for god sake they have an axe sticking out of a mans head in the tutorial...axe in head = awsome)
I agree that the graphics will also lend to a better functioning world mechanicly.....which equates to less lag...an absolute show stoper in my book.
This games strenght is its unique setting....and hopefully game play.
Graphics is the single most OVERATED stat used to determine a pass or fail with a game....unless to dense to see past "the pretty lights" and are content to stand ingame looking at swaying grass (god how the masses are so easily ammused). The graphiocs are more than adequate to effectivly portray the sentiments of a harsh and dangerouse enviroment (for god sake they have an axe sticking out of a mans head in the tutorial...axe in head = awsome) I agree that the graphics will also lend to a better functioning world mechanicly.....which equates to less lag...an absolute show stoper in my book. This games strenght is its unique setting....and hopefully game play.
no its not, just tell me how many old school games, you can play with joy now,there arent many
there is one thing, bad graphic quiality + good style = wc3 ( shit its not bad graphic quality, it was superb back in the days, but by pleasant look, it gives you, it still surpases todays some shity rts ) and there is bad quality + bad style , i cant just pop game out of my head, i know i had one which i was like WTF just recent
i wont even go into whole ', lots of rts 2 years ago, which were released in such graphic/style , that playing them for more than 30 mins, would make your eyes hurt like bitch , and trust me i have good eyes, thank god i didnt met any of those games anymore this year..
there is one thing, wanting to game look pleasant, for example like wow, and another look just outstanding like aoc, yes asking it to be looking like aoc is too much, but asking for it to be pleasant its not,
Personnally, I'd rather see more "not-so-good-looking" games and see more innovation in term of gameplay. I'd like to see a game that push back the limits and redifine the genre.. Or maybe even to its old-school glory. Haven't been following Fallen Earth a lot, but it looks promising.
The reason anyone would make a game with graphics that are slightly older is so that more people can play it. Bigger player base = more money.
look at war and darkfall when they tried that and they failed specialy darkfall
Then look at the most popular MMOs out today... WoW Linage I and II FFXI ... name a few others that have over a million subs.. they all have low graphics
Comments
wow....you look at this game and think "bad gfx"?
you need to go elsewhere.....and stop playing games....you are too picky
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
WOW was dated when it came out and look at it still go.
It's about gameplay, graphics are for kids.
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
It is funny i tested it and the GFX is what surprised me from game that is in beta testing.
Mayby the videos and SS do not render justice the modeling are prety good.
The word and the npc’s not so much but as you say is kind weard world.
The game may not be grat hit as i see 3 games in 2009 that are beter and may give this kind game play, but is not bad at all.
http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2006/05/mindark_im_sorr.html
I don't think you people are good judges at all.....game looks good to me......and I been playing since Archon on th CD64
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Once again the entire game looks different now
Closed Beta right now.
Devs would like to release in Q2 2009.
The devs have stated time and time again, that they wont force a release date. The have stated on their forums that it will be released when its done, and not before then. Seeing how its already April, and no date has been released yet, I don't think Q2 is an accurate estimate.
Once the date is set, company still needs time to push sales/ advertise/ etc.. Build the pre-sales, get the game reviews, etc.
And FYI, graphics are not everything. I still prefer the game play of EQ1, to that of WoW, EQ2, AoC, Warhammer, and every other game Ive played over the years. Spit and polish on a bad game, is still a bad game. Maybe you need the super graphics, to justify the cost of your computer system, but me, I prefer a good game over high end graphics.
Ye, that's why so few kids play wow...
"nerf rock, paper is working as intended."
- Scissors.
Head Chop
What I got out of the Original Post.
"Graphics aren't important to me. blah blah blah, I'm not going to play this game because of the Graphics."
A real walking contradiction.
The game looks alright graphically, however the animation team did a great job on making everything feel proper.
If there was one thing about the graphics that annoyed me is the fact that way back when, when I first heard about this game, all the character's heads looked Disproportionally huge compared to the bodies.
After watching the latest videos, and the tutorial video, I'm more pumped than ever.
BTW, craftable vehicles.
Remember that the game is still in beta and they have been progressively polishing up the graphics.
In beta testing, you might not be able to see everything. In alpha testing, there are an even greater chance that some of the release features are withheld. Graphics is one.
For an engine not optimised, with developer and bug tracer built in, performance is an issue. IF that stage of testing does not involve graphics and performance, it makes sense to tone down the graphics or set a cap at low resolution so that the users will be focused on testing the rest of the game.
Judging a game at alpha stage is way too early, and judging on graphics before release?
You know ppl keep bringing up AoC when they talk about graphics, honestly I rather would have played it if it looked like this as long as it could have been just as fun and not suck like gameplay in AoC did...lol
www.youtube.com/watch
Closed Beta right now.
Devs would like to release in Q2 2009.
Whatever. The game still looks great for a "closed beta". Honestly the game looks a lot better than WAR does.
The game looks 100 times better than EarthRise.......its "competition" in the post Apoc setting....though Earth Rise is far from post Apoc IMHO
The reason anyone would make a game with graphics that are slightly older is so that more people can play it.
Bigger player base = more money.
look at war and darkfall when they tried that and they failed specialy darkfall
look at war and darkfall when they tried that and they failed specialy darkfall
Same can be said about AoC with the high end graphics.
_______
|___
\_______/
=
|X| \*........*/ |X|
|X|_________|X|
You wouldn't understand
look at war and darkfall when they tried that and they failed specialy darkfall
Then look at the most popular MMOs out today...
WoW
Linage I and II
FFXI
... name a few others that have over a million subs.. they all have low graphics
To OP,
I think the graphics look at least as good as AOC. What more do you want? Then on top of that it is one big seamless world which even WOW doesn't have.
look at war and darkfall when they tried that and they failed specialy darkfall
Then look at the most popular MMOs out today...
WoW
Linage I and II
FFXI
... name a few others that have over a million subs.. they all have low graphics
well those games are all 4-5 years duh:P think a little and aoc only failed cause they had noob devs
look at war and darkfall when they tried that and they failed specialy darkfall
Then look at the most popular MMOs out today...
WoW
Linage I and II
FFXI
... name a few others that have over a million subs.. they all have low graphics
well those games are all 4-5 years duh:P think a little and aoc only failed cause they had noob devs
No, not because of "noob" devs, wich they certainly aren't. More becasue of lack of good management and leadership, also due to the fact that FC thought it was a better idea to concentrate on beautiful graphics with "phat loot", nipples and "kewl mounts" instead of actual content and a great game, wich it could've been. The world of Hyboria has a grweat history and FC decided to focus on...nipples...THAT'S why FC's stocks went down 99%.
Anyway, back to subject. I believe that Fallen Earth is going to be a great game, it has insane possibilities. Anyone who loved SWG will probably love this game as well. I'm sure of it.
I guess I don't see how the graphics for this are so bad. They look pretty damn good, this is one I am watching for sure.
H O R R I B L E , as you put it Draccan, is beyond pushing it. This game looks pretty decent all things considered.
Let's also take a few things into account here:
The graphics are more than enough and will allow for better gaming mechanics such as, Larger, Seamless worlds and more things on screen at once.
Fallout 3 has good graphics but if you pay attention you'll notice that they are not anything too special. They use the Havok engine which allows for a good middle-ground of functionality and appearance and works especially well in dystopian settings. I'm not sure what engine Fallen Earth is using, but I'm only using an example.
Again, you're pushing it Draccan. I remember seeing you all over the place months and months ago when I was on the forums. I haven't been here in a while, but I'm back and distinctly remember your over-ambitious trolling for bashing games that you either don't agree with or put down because you're a devotee of another game.
Graphics is the single most OVERATED stat used to determine a pass or fail with a game....unless to dense to see past "the pretty lights" and are content to stand ingame looking at swaying grass (god how the masses are so easily ammused).
The graphiocs are more than adequate to effectivly portray the sentiments of a harsh and dangerouse enviroment (for god sake they have an axe sticking out of a mans head in the tutorial...axe in head = awsome)
I agree that the graphics will also lend to a better functioning world mechanicly.....which equates to less lag...an absolute show stoper in my book.
This games strenght is its unique setting....and hopefully game play.
no its not, just tell me how many old school games, you can play with joy now,there arent many
there is one thing, bad graphic quiality + good style = wc3 ( shit its not bad graphic quality, it was superb back in the days, but by pleasant look, it gives you, it still surpases todays some shity rts ) and there is bad quality + bad style , i cant just pop game out of my head, i know i had one which i was like WTF just recent
i wont even go into whole ', lots of rts 2 years ago, which were released in such graphic/style , that playing them for more than 30 mins, would make your eyes hurt like bitch , and trust me i have good eyes, thank god i didnt met any of those games anymore this year..
there is one thing, wanting to game look pleasant, for example like wow, and another look just outstanding like aoc, yes asking it to be looking like aoc is too much, but asking for it to be pleasant its not,
Personnally, I'd rather see more "not-so-good-looking" games and see more innovation in term of gameplay. I'd like to see a game that push back the limits and redifine the genre.. Or maybe even to its old-school glory. Haven't been following Fallen Earth a lot, but it looks promising.