Personally, I have always preferred a less cartoony look to my graphics; for me the objects and terrain can make the game look more realistic and can create more immersion. Games like the Everquest series, AOC and VG to some degree as well. I think VG and LOTRO are quite similar with their art style which is probably in between being too realistic and too cartoony. GW 2 fits into this league.
But what counts alot is the art style and GW 2 has a very nice "painterly look" which is hard to tell from videos because from videos it can make the colors look more cartoony than they actually are.
What also counts is the degree of constant movements in terrain and objects like grass moving, shadow effects, smoke, lighting, wind, dropping leaves, sky particles, trees blowing and so forth. GW 2 from the HD three part demonstration showed very effective movement which helps makes the game more immersive and the graphics better.
The general artdirection is still the best on the market, period. Landscapes, cities, interiors, effects etc. all look absolutely amazing. Especially Divinitys Reach is beyond breathtaking. I'm not too fond of the characterdesign however, i don't know what happened there. GW Characters where far more unique and had more expression and style, dispite having probably less polygons on the whole model than a hand in GW 2 takes up. GW 2 humans for example look like soulless puppets. Thats a shame. And i hate the little guys. Hated them in eye of the north and even more now that they are a playable race.
I would agree that graphics wise AoC is ahead here. I imagine SweetZoid is confusing the art style, realism versus stylistic.
The problem is in the duplicity of the term 'better graphics', it can mean different things:
- 'better graphics' can mean a higher level of detail in textures and a higher polygon count, an area in which AoC and FFXIV in my opinion currently hold the crown
- 'better graphics' can also mean the art design and style of the graphics. This is a definition more prone to subjectivity, but there's no doubt that ANet has one of the best art design teams in the MMO business, and this clearly reflects in their work like the video footage, the concept art, and the graphics ingame. They manage to make the most of the texture and polygon count limitations presented to them.
I think I've also figured out why GW was for its time the game with the best graphics of all MMORPG's/CORPG's around back then, leaving games as WoW, EQ2 and SWG behind, while GW2 is still awesomely looking but seems to be lagging behind other MMORPG's in some areas, like compared to Aion (in character detail and animation), AoC, and a Vindictus.
GW had only limited groups in its quest instances, where most of the heavy spell effects were taking place. In GW2, the world is vaster, persistent with larger areas, and the number of people around in combat is far, far higher than in GW.
To make things as the fight with the humongous dragon work smoothly with 60+ people and all the gorgous effects still visible, you have to tone down and can't go cutting edge like in an instanced game with smaller number of people around in a small area. That's the reason why AoC has a cap to the number of players that can be in 1 instance and why it lags when a lot of people are fighting in close combat, or why Aion disables the player character visibility in sieges.
GW2 so far doesn't seem to have that problem, and that in its early stage already, pre-polish and optimisation.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
The general artdirection is still the best on the market, period. Landscapes, cities, interiors, effects etc. all look absolutely amazing. Especially Divinitys Reach is beyond breathtaking. I'm not too fond of the characterdesign however, i don't know what happened there. GW Characters where far more unique and had more expression and style, dispite having probably less polygons on the whole model than a hand in GW 2 takes up. GW 2 humans for example look like soulless puppets. Thats a shame. And i hate the little guys. Hated them in eye of the north and even more now that they are a playable race.
I agree, the environment graphics are simply stunning and breathtaking, even more if you look at the videos and see the other vistas. I had the same feeling towards the character models, in GW they were simply the best looking around in MMO's, even for years after its launch until games like AoC and Aion came around; maybe it is because in GW they were all handcrafted, fixed textures (you could only pick a limited set of faces and were not able to adjust them) while in GW2 they will very likely be customisable with all kinds of facial features sliders. I hope that the upcoming months of polishing and enhancing will improve that.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
From the videos I've seen the graphics look fine. However, I really hope there is a toggle or an option to shut off the blinding bright neon outlines that can surround enemies. Bright neon colors just totally break any sort of realism or immersion. I can understand having it to see who the boss is and what is targetted but I hope it is optional.
why does everyone keep saying GW2 polycounts are low? The playable characters all look like they have a polycount range of 5000-6000 polygons. Give you an idea the characters in Gears of war only had a polycount of about 10000 polygons. GW2 is using normal maps to describe secondary details like Gears of War, as tertiary detail requires to much resolution from the normal map. The only real difference is texture resolution, which is far more expansive than adding polygons to a model to a point. you can tell that GW2 Normal maps are at a lower texture resolution than their diffuse maps, which is why they can't add any tertiary detail and only larger secondary detail.
I too think the character modells are - at least for now - low on polygons, the enviroment on the other hand is looking nearly marvelous. Since I'm male I asked my girlfriend about the female models and she would have prefered them more "aionlike" I agree the sorceress didn't look very female.
Overall I think this game will be on pair with Aion, Aoc and Vanguard but not as graphically outstanding as Tera.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
They look great i've always like the fantasy look. the only issue i can see is these are at max setting. I'm pretty sure that alot of people simply won't get this level of detail and still get smooth gameplay. But otherwise i really like the graphics they look nice.
I fall into the Non fan. It's not anything with the game i'm just not into PVP
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
They look great i've always like the fantasy look. the only issue i can see is these are at max setting. I'm pretty sure that alot of people simply won't get this level of detail and still get smooth gameplay. But otherwise i really like the graphics they look nice.
I fall into the Non fan. It's not anything with the game i'm just not into PVP
You're a non-fan because you're not into PVP? The game does not force you to PVP. Its a totally sectioned off portion of the game. If you want to PVP, they have places to PVP in. If you don't like PVP, all you have to do is continue playing the game like normal.
I'd suggest looking up some info on how they plan to do PVP. If you're a player that doesn't like PVP, you'll be fine in GW2.
"Everyone dies. It is how one lives that matters." Artemis Entreri (R.A. Salvatore)
"P.S. MAKE NO DEALS WITH THE WOLF." -Durzo Blint-
"But, there is one they fear.
In their tongue, he is Dovahkiin -- Dragonborn!" -Game of the Century-
I really feel it is too early to really say. Everything we have seen so far is from an early pre-beta version of the game. If they do half as well with GW2 as they did with GW1, there is nothing to worry about. The graphics will be very good and the game will be very playable.
Technical presentation of the graphics seems fine. Also, environments seem rich and alive. I'm not overly impressed with the character art style, but that's a personal taste type of thing.
About the only thing I am hoping for is some news on release date. But aren't we all :-)
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Besides I will most likely fighting for my life bringing my own brand of righteous justice to the hordes of Zhaitans minions and all those that dare oppose The Vigil. I will be too busy stepping over the bodies of the vanquished to have time to spare to check if my dagger makes me look fat.
This probably.
To answer the OP: I like what they did so far!
But to be honest, I'm more interested in the game itself...
of course nice shiny graphics are always nice to have.
However, I wont be pleased with a game that plays like crap but with beautiful GFX,
I probably wont be playing for long if thats the case (I'm sure it won't be though).
I really like what they did with the map though, and the water... oooh shiny water!
But I'm sure ArenaNet is going to deliver a very nice looking and awsome game many of us will enjoy for a long time!
don't forget that people will even turn down graphics to reduce lag on their 1gb ram :P
That's cuz people don't realize that GW 2 will require a minimum of 2.6ghz duel-core processor with 4 gigs of RAM and vid memory of at least 1gig just to play on the low end of the graphics settings, and for those relying on the " GW 2 can be played on mid level range computers" statement heres the jiff's on that, unless you bought your computer from June 2009 to now your computer is shit and will not be able to even run the graphics for the log-in screen. so for those of you with grandpa pc's and want to play GW 2 it's time for ya's to upgrade BIG TIME.
don't forget that people will even turn down graphics to reduce lag on their 1gb ram :P
That's cuz people don't realize that GW 2 will require a minimum of 2.6ghz duel-core processor with 4 gigs of RAM and vid memory of at least 1gig just to play on the low end of the graphics settings, and for those relying on the " GW 2 can be played on mid level range computers" statement heres the jiff's on that, unless you bought your computer from June 2009 to now your computer is shit and will not be able to even run the graphics for the log-in screen. so for those of you with grandpa pc's and want to play GW 2 it's time for ya's to upgrade BIG TIME.
coolstory bro
"It has potential" -Second most used phrase on existence "It sucks" -Most used phrase on existence
I honestly can't be arsed checking if i've replied to this thread.. but i dig thre graphics and even more so the atmosphere the vids have been showing.
I like the artistic design. The graphics are standard, as to not limit the playerbase to elite computers, which is great, but is also not too old-fashioned that you feel that it's lacking.
don't forget that people will even turn down graphics to reduce lag on their 1gb ram :P
That's cuz people don't realize that GW 2 will require a minimum of 2.6ghz duel-core processor with 4 gigs of RAM and vid memory of at least 1gig just to play on the low end of the graphics settings, and for those relying on the " GW 2 can be played on mid level range computers" statement heres the jiff's on that, unless you bought your computer from June 2009 to now your computer is shit and will not be able to even run the graphics for the log-in screen. so for those of you with grandpa pc's and want to play GW 2 it's time for ya's to upgrade BIG TIME.
a) it's dual core, but a duel core would be funny. *imagines a phenom II smacking an i7 with a glove*
b) a dual core @ a measly 2.6GHz and 4gb of ram isn't mainstream, it's higher entry level, quads are mainstream.
c) the game has performed 'well' on a 8600GT 256MB gpu according to the developers (they test a large volume of computers, from crappy laptops to decent £600 gaming desktops [with hd5870's ect.]), if you haven't got a gpu that can't beat that you should expect low settings.
So you should expect to run on 2009's mid range (9800GT 512GB and high end dual/low end quad core with 3-4GB RAM) computers very well, with low end computers handling the lowest settings. As long as you've got current integrated graphics (we're talking i3 or hd4200 and above) you'll be ok for low settings. To be honest i'd say if you can run civilization V it's all going to be fine and you won't really be struggling.
If you can't play gw2, you'll need to spend £250 on a pc that can is all
The only thing I didn't like too much are the character models, specificly the faces and skin tones of all races besides Charr (I guess you could say their 'fur covers it up').
They look a bit too... plastic, bordering cartoon-ish.
That said, gameplay > graphics. You won't see me bitch about graphics a lot, especially when working on graphics can potentially reduce development time spend on gameplay.
Comments
3 for effort. But not quite Comedy Central Presents just yet.
Alltern8 Blog | Star Wars Space Combat and The Old Republic | Cryptic Studios - A Pre Post-Mortem | Klingon Preview, STO's Monster Play
I would agree that graphics wise AoC is ahead here. I imagine SweetZoid is confusing the art style, realism versus stylistic.
Personally, I have always preferred a less cartoony look to my graphics; for me the objects and terrain can make the game look more realistic and can create more immersion. Games like the Everquest series, AOC and VG to some degree as well. I think VG and LOTRO are quite similar with their art style which is probably in between being too realistic and too cartoony. GW 2 fits into this league.
But what counts alot is the art style and GW 2 has a very nice "painterly look" which is hard to tell from videos because from videos it can make the colors look more cartoony than they actually are.
What also counts is the degree of constant movements in terrain and objects like grass moving, shadow effects, smoke, lighting, wind, dropping leaves, sky particles, trees blowing and so forth. GW 2 from the HD three part demonstration showed very effective movement which helps makes the game more immersive and the graphics better.
The general artdirection is still the best on the market, period. Landscapes, cities, interiors, effects etc. all look absolutely amazing. Especially Divinitys Reach is beyond breathtaking. I'm not too fond of the characterdesign however, i don't know what happened there. GW Characters where far more unique and had more expression and style, dispite having probably less polygons on the whole model than a hand in GW 2 takes up. GW 2 humans for example look like soulless puppets. Thats a shame. And i hate the little guys. Hated them in eye of the north and even more now that they are a playable race.
The problem is in the duplicity of the term 'better graphics', it can mean different things:
- 'better graphics' can mean a higher level of detail in textures and a higher polygon count, an area in which AoC and FFXIV in my opinion currently hold the crown
- 'better graphics' can also mean the art design and style of the graphics. This is a definition more prone to subjectivity, but there's no doubt that ANet has one of the best art design teams in the MMO business, and this clearly reflects in their work like the video footage, the concept art, and the graphics ingame. They manage to make the most of the texture and polygon count limitations presented to them.
I think I've also figured out why GW was for its time the game with the best graphics of all MMORPG's/CORPG's around back then, leaving games as WoW, EQ2 and SWG behind, while GW2 is still awesomely looking but seems to be lagging behind other MMORPG's in some areas, like compared to Aion (in character detail and animation), AoC, and a Vindictus.
GW had only limited groups in its quest instances, where most of the heavy spell effects were taking place. In GW2, the world is vaster, persistent with larger areas, and the number of people around in combat is far, far higher than in GW.
To make things as the fight with the humongous dragon work smoothly with 60+ people and all the gorgous effects still visible, you have to tone down and can't go cutting edge like in an instanced game with smaller number of people around in a small area. That's the reason why AoC has a cap to the number of players that can be in 1 instance and why it lags when a lot of people are fighting in close combat, or why Aion disables the player character visibility in sieges.
GW2 so far doesn't seem to have that problem, and that in its early stage already, pre-polish and optimisation.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I agree, the environment graphics are simply stunning and breathtaking, even more if you look at the videos and see the other vistas. I had the same feeling towards the character models, in GW they were simply the best looking around in MMO's, even for years after its launch until games like AoC and Aion came around; maybe it is because in GW they were all handcrafted, fixed textures (you could only pick a limited set of faces and were not able to adjust them) while in GW2 they will very likely be customisable with all kinds of facial features sliders. I hope that the upcoming months of polishing and enhancing will improve that.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
From the videos I've seen the graphics look fine. However, I really hope there is a toggle or an option to shut off the blinding bright neon outlines that can surround enemies. Bright neon colors just totally break any sort of realism or immersion. I can understand having it to see who the boss is and what is targetted but I hope it is optional.
Ask the question when the full game is actually out =/
why does everyone keep saying GW2 polycounts are low? The playable characters all look like they have a polycount range of 5000-6000 polygons. Give you an idea the characters in Gears of war only had a polycount of about 10000 polygons. GW2 is using normal maps to describe secondary details like Gears of War, as tertiary detail requires to much resolution from the normal map. The only real difference is texture resolution, which is far more expansive than adding polygons to a model to a point. you can tell that GW2 Normal maps are at a lower texture resolution than their diffuse maps, which is why they can't add any tertiary detail and only larger secondary detail.
I too think the character modells are - at least for now - low on polygons, the enviroment on the other hand is looking nearly marvelous. Since I'm male I asked my girlfriend about the female models and she would have prefered them more "aionlike" I agree the sorceress didn't look very female.
Overall I think this game will be on pair with Aion, Aoc and Vanguard but not as graphically outstanding as Tera.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
They look great i've always like the fantasy look. the only issue i can see is these are at max setting. I'm pretty sure that alot of people simply won't get this level of detail and still get smooth gameplay. But otherwise i really like the graphics they look nice.
I fall into the Non fan. It's not anything with the game i'm just not into PVP
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
You're a non-fan because you're not into PVP? The game does not force you to PVP. Its a totally sectioned off portion of the game. If you want to PVP, they have places to PVP in. If you don't like PVP, all you have to do is continue playing the game like normal.
I'd suggest looking up some info on how they plan to do PVP. If you're a player that doesn't like PVP, you'll be fine in GW2.
"Everyone dies. It is how one lives that matters."
Artemis Entreri (R.A. Salvatore)
"P.S. MAKE NO DEALS WITH THE WOLF." -Durzo Blint-
"But, there is one they fear.
In their tongue, he is Dovahkiin -- Dragonborn!" -Game of the Century-
At least the graphics are better than this:
Though I must admit, part of me likes the "MS Paint" engine...
GW2 doesn't need to worry about its graphics. It's hyping up so much other stuff that (most) people won't even notice.
don't forget that people will even turn down graphics to reduce lag on their 1gb ram :P
I really feel it is too early to really say. Everything we have seen so far is from an early pre-beta version of the game. If they do half as well with GW2 as they did with GW1, there is nothing to worry about. The graphics will be very good and the game will be very playable.
Ask again when the game is out.
Technical presentation of the graphics seems fine. Also, environments seem rich and alive. I'm not overly impressed with the character art style, but that's a personal taste type of thing.
About the only thing I am hoping for is some news on release date. But aren't we all :-)
This probably.
To answer the OP: I like what they did so far!
But to be honest, I'm more interested in the game itself...
of course nice shiny graphics are always nice to have.
However, I wont be pleased with a game that plays like crap but with beautiful GFX,
I probably wont be playing for long if thats the case (I'm sure it won't be though).
I really like what they did with the map though, and the water... oooh shiny water!
But I'm sure ArenaNet is going to deliver a very nice looking and awsome game many of us will enjoy for a long time!
That's cuz people don't realize that GW 2 will require a minimum of 2.6ghz duel-core processor with 4 gigs of RAM and vid memory of at least 1gig just to play on the low end of the graphics settings, and for those relying on the " GW 2 can be played on mid level range computers" statement heres the jiff's on that, unless you bought your computer from June 2009 to now your computer is shit and will not be able to even run the graphics for the log-in screen. so for those of you with grandpa pc's and want to play GW 2 it's time for ya's to upgrade BIG TIME.
Evil will always triumph because good is dumb....
coolstory bro
"It has potential"
-Second most used phrase on existence
"It sucks"
-Most used phrase on existence
I honestly can't be arsed checking if i've replied to this thread.. but i dig thre graphics and even more so the atmosphere the vids have been showing.
Gameplay? We'll see.
I like the artistic design. The graphics are standard, as to not limit the playerbase to elite computers, which is great, but is also not too old-fashioned that you feel that it's lacking.
He who keeps his cool best wins.
a) it's dual core, but a duel core would be funny. *imagines a phenom II smacking an i7 with a glove*
b) a dual core @ a measly 2.6GHz and 4gb of ram isn't mainstream, it's higher entry level, quads are mainstream.
c) the game has performed 'well' on a 8600GT 256MB gpu according to the developers (they test a large volume of computers, from crappy laptops to decent £600 gaming desktops [with hd5870's ect.]), if you haven't got a gpu that can't beat that you should expect low settings.
So you should expect to run on 2009's mid range (9800GT 512GB and high end dual/low end quad core with 3-4GB RAM) computers very well, with low end computers handling the lowest settings. As long as you've got current integrated graphics (we're talking i3 or hd4200 and above) you'll be ok for low settings. To be honest i'd say if you can run civilization V it's all going to be fine and you won't really be struggling.
If you can't play gw2, you'll need to spend £250 on a pc that can is all
I think it looks good, however I think the humans look so fake, but I don't think we'll get a game that make humans look good for a long long time.
-I want a Platformer MMO
The only thing I didn't like too much are the character models, specificly the faces and skin tones of all races besides Charr (I guess you could say their 'fur covers it up').
They look a bit too... plastic, bordering cartoon-ish.
That said, gameplay > graphics. You won't see me bitch about graphics a lot, especially when working on graphics can potentially reduce development time spend on gameplay.