one thing i found strange about this thread is that people say you should compare WOW to EQ and DAOC cause WoW came out some many years afterward but on the same note people compare WoW to Rift and GW2 that are released or will releast more the 5 years after WoW
I challenged my reflection to a staring contest....4 days later i won
WoW was created with an already outdated engine at the time. WC3's? So, considering that it's alright. Probly not up to standard for todays expectations but passable none the less.
The graphics in WoW never really bothered me. To me they look like the Warcraft games as far as art style goes. I can't think of any Blizzard game that has graphics superior to what else is out there.
Take it all with a grain of salt, there is a loud group of players that prefer only gameplay to graphics. This isn't inherently bad but these are also the same people who would freak out if WOW made Orcs to have a Garrosh model or Blood Elves to have a Sylvannus like model.
Say what you will about WOWs graphics. I personally think they need to overhaul all the models, but the world environment hasn't dated at all too me which was the true intent for Blizzards.
I personally feel that WoW still has the best graphics / animations out of any MMO out there.
It seems to me that so many of the people that bash WoW do so out of jealousy or out of the assumptiion it somehow makes the look cool / fit in. Its pretty pathetic.
I personally feel that WoW still has the best graphics / animations out of any MMO out there.
It seems to me that so many of the people that bash WoW do so out of jealousy or out of the assumptiion it somehow makes the look cool / fit in. Its pretty pathetic.
lol Have you even SEEN Rift or Aion? lol seriously, dude.
I personally feel that WoW still has the best graphics / animations out of any MMO out there.
It seems to me that so many of the people that bash WoW do so out of jealousy or out of the assumptiion it somehow makes the look cool / fit in. Its pretty pathetic.
to me WoW has the best art continuity and "heart" but rift, AoC, eve, rift, Aion, even L2 and GW all have better overall graphics, technically- wise IMHO.
Eve is also very good in the art direction department and ff14 ha really really good emote animations and facial expressions.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
I see WoW bashers constantly targeting WoW's graphics with insults such as it being Cartoony and such bad graphics.
But why do these same people not put any efforts into bashing DAoC and EQ1's graphics as well?
Damn, WoW may not have the best Grpahics, but at least they make up for it in Animations.
EQ1 and DAoC have both bad Graphics and Bad Animations.
Wow is/was a multi-billion dollar a year industry. Primarily speaking, Blizzard's Warcraft RPG/mmorpg department's net gains. Some people feel that they have given very little return for the money invested. Charging for expansion packs is not return. Improving graphics to meet or exceed the standards expected by a flagship title would be a rational expectation.
Unfortunately for some, it appears WoW's theme park concept, while well played and brilliantly advertised, does not cater to the older school community who expected realistic symmetry within the textures and drawings of mmorpg characters, buildings, armor, etc. This is not always a bad thing - i.e., NOT catering to the old school players. However, we tend to be very loyal to a product that is loyal to us and gives us a true sense of immersion, i.e., EQ1, Ultima, Dark Age of Camelot (no flag capturing here).
EQ1 and DAoC have been running on an engine that dates back to 1998-2000. What they did with what they had was impressive. If you want to see the updated version of the same engine - look at Rifts: Planes of Telara.
i kinda dig those graphic engine's as long as the gameplay live up to my standards.
WoW's engine might be old bit it feels timeless like Zelda and Darksiders, and for me personaly it beats the crap out of warhammer / Rifts engine anyday.
Lets fast forward abit to Dark Millenium and Firefall, those games also use same kind of cartoonish based engine's and they look promesing.
Engine's like Rift and Warhammer never appealed to me, even when i created a 1800 euro system for Warhammer a few years back and settings maxed out it just dint amaze me
WoW 2011 with a major overhaul on alot of textures and what not is still looking good for a engine that was made 8 or 9 years back.
Not talking about the launch day in 2004, but when blizzard created the engine they just wanted that every pc / mac / laptop could handle the game.
long story short, zelda / wow / Darksiders / Dark Millenium / Firefall best egnine's.
Warhammer Rift EQ DAOC engine's is not my kind of thing.
I see WoW bashers constantly targeting WoW's graphics with insults such as it being Cartoony and such bad graphics.
But why do these same people not put any efforts into bashing DAoC and EQ1's graphics as well?
Damn, WoW may not have the best Grpahics, but at least they make up for it in Animations.
EQ1 and DAoC have both bad Graphics and Bad Animations.
EQ1 is from 1999, it had fine graphics then. DaoC never really been pretty, but the reason people complain on Wows graphics is because Wow is both newer and still have millions of subs.
Wow had of course fine graphics in late 2004 when it released, if EQ or DaoC would be the MMO with most polayers people would complain on it's graphics instead of Wows.
People don't complain on those games because you don't kick someone that is already lying down.
The caartoony thing however is about art and while many people like to complain about it you really can't have much of a discussion about it, some people like that artstyle, other prefer realistic and noone is really right or wrong there.
One group is arguing about computer graphics, the other is just arguing about graphics.
If you're talking about computer graphics, you are talking about all the technical computer graphics issues, such as the projection, the tracing, the rendering, the mapping, shading, anti-aliasing etc. So 2 graphical engines, from 2 different eras, will have different powers and sophistications in terms of doing the above.
Graphics in general, if you don't use it in the sense of the technical phrase above, include all of the above things, plus more.
So to take 2 extremes of this argument :
1 - you have the newest extreme 3D engine, capable of high polygon counts and texture shadings, and you create a game where all the players have a spherical head, cylindrical bodies, and skinnier cylindrical limbs. The environment is just all white, and completely flat, with conical things that represent trees, and bigger cones that represent mountains. All of it is textured and shaded beautifully that it almost looks like real objects. Does not make the game have good graphics? The answer is of course, no. Even though the graphics engine is state of the art, and all the object look completely photorealistic.
2 - you have a game like WoW, where the engine is old, the polygon counts are low, but the designers have made efforts to make sure that when the ingame rain hits the ground, it makes a splash.... when you dive under water, the particle density increases to limit your range of visibility.... when you character runs / walks, they leave a footprint... when you character swims in water, it leaves a wake...
So the argument comes down to whether you are arguing that WoW had an inferior computer graphics engine, or you are talking about all the things you can see on your screen which is taking up your graphics card memory resources.
I think I can safely argue that when people are complaining about graphics, they are complaining about what they can see on their screen, and all this is a matter of taste. I saw someone's incredulous: "dude have you seen Rift? Are you serious?" jibe. My reply is "yes", I have seen Rift, and I think the graphics in Rift are inferior compared to WoW. The first thing I noticed was that when it rains in Rift, the rain drops do not splash on the ground, when it rains in Rift, there is no increase in atmospheric particle density, and when you swim in Rift, your character does not leave a wake trail - all these thing WoW have, and I guess it just becomes a matter of whether this matters more to you, or whether you are more concerned about the number of polygons on your avatars face, which you probably mostly won't see, because if the gear is cool enough, you'll have your helmet on show.
So as I said, when people talk about graphics, it's all just a matter of personal taste. Make no mistake, if World of Warcraft was released today, it won't look too different to the way it does now.
And the reason? Because it is called World of Warcraft... in the sense that the story continues from Warcraft III, and hence in game characters you see have to be recognizable from the Warcraft III miniscreen avatars, it will have the same slightly blocky, out-of-perspective, cartooney feel. People complaining that Blizzard did not render Wold of Warcraft with the newest possible graphical technology at the time I think have completely missed the point.
Comments
one thing i found strange about this thread is that people say you should compare WOW to EQ and DAOC cause WoW came out some many years afterward but on the same note people compare WoW to Rift and GW2 that are released or will releast more the 5 years after WoW
I challenged my reflection to a staring contest....4 days later i won
WoW was created with an already outdated engine at the time. WC3's? So, considering that it's alright. Probly not up to standard for todays expectations but passable none the less.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
...
Wait. I love cartoons! Heck, I live from DRAWING cartoons!... But I still hate WOW graphics. They are ugly. XD
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
The graphics in WoW never really bothered me. To me they look like the Warcraft games as far as art style goes. I can't think of any Blizzard game that has graphics superior to what else is out there.
Take it all with a grain of salt, there is a loud group of players that prefer only gameplay to graphics. This isn't inherently bad but these are also the same people who would freak out if WOW made Orcs to have a Garrosh model or Blood Elves to have a Sylvannus like model.
Say what you will about WOWs graphics. I personally think they need to overhaul all the models, but the world environment hasn't dated at all too me which was the true intent for Blizzards.
Graphic styles ...color pallets used... realistic vs stylized.... you prefer some over others.
I personally feel that WoW still has the best graphics / animations out of any MMO out there.
It seems to me that so many of the people that bash WoW do so out of jealousy or out of the assumptiion it somehow makes the look cool / fit in. Its pretty pathetic.
lol Have you even SEEN Rift or Aion? lol seriously, dude.
to me WoW has the best art continuity and "heart" but rift, AoC, eve, rift, Aion, even L2 and GW all have better overall graphics, technically- wise IMHO.
Eve is also very good in the art direction department and ff14 ha really really good emote animations and facial expressions.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
Wow is/was a multi-billion dollar a year industry. Primarily speaking, Blizzard's Warcraft RPG/mmorpg department's net gains. Some people feel that they have given very little return for the money invested. Charging for expansion packs is not return. Improving graphics to meet or exceed the standards expected by a flagship title would be a rational expectation.
Unfortunately for some, it appears WoW's theme park concept, while well played and brilliantly advertised, does not cater to the older school community who expected realistic symmetry within the textures and drawings of mmorpg characters, buildings, armor, etc. This is not always a bad thing - i.e., NOT catering to the old school players. However, we tend to be very loyal to a product that is loyal to us and gives us a true sense of immersion, i.e., EQ1, Ultima, Dark Age of Camelot (no flag capturing here).
EQ1 and DAoC have been running on an engine that dates back to 1998-2000. What they did with what they had was impressive. If you want to see the updated version of the same engine - look at Rifts: Planes of Telara.
i kinda dig those graphic engine's as long as the gameplay live up to my standards.
WoW's engine might be old bit it feels timeless like Zelda and Darksiders, and for me personaly it beats the crap out of warhammer / Rifts engine anyday.
Lets fast forward abit to Dark Millenium and Firefall, those games also use same kind of cartoonish based engine's and they look promesing.
Engine's like Rift and Warhammer never appealed to me, even when i created a 1800 euro system for Warhammer a few years back and settings maxed out it just dint amaze me
WoW 2011 with a major overhaul on alot of textures and what not is still looking good for a engine that was made 8 or 9 years back.
Not talking about the launch day in 2004, but when blizzard created the engine they just wanted that every pc / mac / laptop could handle the game.
long story short, zelda / wow / Darksiders / Dark Millenium / Firefall best egnine's.
Warhammer Rift EQ DAOC engine's is not my kind of thing.
EQ1 is from 1999, it had fine graphics then. DaoC never really been pretty, but the reason people complain on Wows graphics is because Wow is both newer and still have millions of subs.
Wow had of course fine graphics in late 2004 when it released, if EQ or DaoC would be the MMO with most polayers people would complain on it's graphics instead of Wows.
People don't complain on those games because you don't kick someone that is already lying down.
The caartoony thing however is about art and while many people like to complain about it you really can't have much of a discussion about it, some people like that artstyle, other prefer realistic and noone is really right or wrong there.
This topic has really split into 2 arguments:
One group is arguing about computer graphics, the other is just arguing about graphics.
If you're talking about computer graphics, you are talking about all the technical computer graphics issues, such as the projection, the tracing, the rendering, the mapping, shading, anti-aliasing etc. So 2 graphical engines, from 2 different eras, will have different powers and sophistications in terms of doing the above.
Graphics in general, if you don't use it in the sense of the technical phrase above, include all of the above things, plus more.
So to take 2 extremes of this argument :
1 - you have the newest extreme 3D engine, capable of high polygon counts and texture shadings, and you create a game where all the players have a spherical head, cylindrical bodies, and skinnier cylindrical limbs. The environment is just all white, and completely flat, with conical things that represent trees, and bigger cones that represent mountains. All of it is textured and shaded beautifully that it almost looks like real objects. Does not make the game have good graphics? The answer is of course, no. Even though the graphics engine is state of the art, and all the object look completely photorealistic.
2 - you have a game like WoW, where the engine is old, the polygon counts are low, but the designers have made efforts to make sure that when the ingame rain hits the ground, it makes a splash.... when you dive under water, the particle density increases to limit your range of visibility.... when you character runs / walks, they leave a footprint... when you character swims in water, it leaves a wake...
So the argument comes down to whether you are arguing that WoW had an inferior computer graphics engine, or you are talking about all the things you can see on your screen which is taking up your graphics card memory resources.
I think I can safely argue that when people are complaining about graphics, they are complaining about what they can see on their screen, and all this is a matter of taste. I saw someone's incredulous: "dude have you seen Rift? Are you serious?" jibe. My reply is "yes", I have seen Rift, and I think the graphics in Rift are inferior compared to WoW. The first thing I noticed was that when it rains in Rift, the rain drops do not splash on the ground, when it rains in Rift, there is no increase in atmospheric particle density, and when you swim in Rift, your character does not leave a wake trail - all these thing WoW have, and I guess it just becomes a matter of whether this matters more to you, or whether you are more concerned about the number of polygons on your avatars face, which you probably mostly won't see, because if the gear is cool enough, you'll have your helmet on show.
So as I said, when people talk about graphics, it's all just a matter of personal taste. Make no mistake, if World of Warcraft was released today, it won't look too different to the way it does now.
And the reason? Because it is called World of Warcraft... in the sense that the story continues from Warcraft III, and hence in game characters you see have to be recognizable from the Warcraft III miniscreen avatars, it will have the same slightly blocky, out-of-perspective, cartooney feel. People complaining that Blizzard did not render Wold of Warcraft with the newest possible graphical technology at the time I think have completely missed the point.