Heres a ss with max settings and forced settings on nvdia card.
The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true.
Again, you're wasting your time. Some people will like it and think there is a visual difference. Some people won't. Whatever you say won't change or alter this fact. All you are doing is creating unnecessary turmoil. You are in no position to judge how someone should view this video and your insults are uncalled for.
Liking or disliking it has nothing to do with how much difference there is in the low-high settings. What exactly are you trying to argue. I never said I disliked it. I only stated that there is VERY little difference between high and low. You get all bent out of shape if you even think someone is not praising the golden cow that is SWTOR.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
I only stated that there is VERY little difference between high and low.
You also stated that SWG has better graphics{mod edit}
In fact, the difference between low and high settings is substantial, the problem isn't scaling but the game overall not reaching contemporary graphics standards.
Have any of you beta testers with Nvidia GPU, tried FXAA injector? what performace are you gettin with it? I think a game runnin on 10 years old Directx 9 shouldnt have any troubles with it.
Have any of you beta testers with Nvidia GPU, tried FXAA injector? what performace are you gettin with it? I think a game runnin on 10 years old Directx 9 shouldnt have any troubles with it.
fxaa is very light wieght and should not drop your frames by more then 1-2fps if any. I have not tried it yet as you can just force AA through your video card control panal. for those who get crappy performance it may be a good option if they must have some AA
Not only does the game itself turn me off, the graphics are a huge turn off for me as well. 0 interest in this MMO...whether its star wars and bioware nor not. I perfer realism rather then kiddie / fluffy graphics :-)
spoken like someone who has no idea about graphic design or why they make the design choices they made.
They chose to stylize their graphics so they would age well and look good years down the road.
Nothing about this looks "kiddie" at all. Lets try to be factually accurate and use language that speaks to our maturity and our profound ability to discuss a topic. [Mod Edit]
Haha looks like crap. No difference in character from low to high. Oh wow look on High settign you get some little slashes in the dirt! WOW my lightsabre glows a tiny bit when I turn on bloom!
SWG had better graphics on highest setting.
Ok, now that is hyperbole. SWG was good for its time, but it isn't SWTOR.
SWTOR is not Crysis, never was intended to have 'realistic' graphics, it is a stylized model. They worked around an engine model starting over 6 years ago, and for the graphics and engine to be 'modern' is rather thought out by the developers and the Hero engine developers, as you are looking at assets that were not possible when the game entered production.
As for the rendering differences, there are some worlds and areas, the shadows and lighting and complex meshes don't make much difference, as it is bright or a cave with flat surfaces, and picking one scene as an 'example' of the quality differences is disingenuous. I'm not sure of the intent of the OP, but conflating a topic they have little understanding of is a waste of your time and mine.
There are some graphics in SWTOR that are 'above' normal outside of the Crysis engine class.
- Animations are well done, fluid and react appropriately to the combat and interaction of the environment.
-Conversation cut-scenes are rendered in "real-time" and even on low end graphical systems, look good, fluid and with the director camera angles are immersive. (Sadly this is often overlooked even in reviews, as the conversations are well done, with good coordinated voice animations, especially considering it is real-time and not the traditional PS3 trick of pre-rendered at a quality level that 10 PS3s couldn't do in real-time.)
Oh, and final thought...
The video comes from before the final beta, where the graphics were turned up, and the new graphical settings were added to the game. So the video and screenshots people are throwing around are already outdated, as Bioware waited til the end of the beta to finish turning up the graphical features.
The final thought here is important, as I was impressed with the graphical jump between the end of November beta and this last weekend on even my low end test machine.
The final thought here is important, as I was impressed with the graphical jump between the end of November beta and this last weekend on even my low end test machine.
Do us all a big favor and can you show us some of these as examples? perhaps someone took videos of it with it at its "true" best?
I'm really curious to see these rumored Hi Rez graphics that are in this game.
Not only the graphics are dated, but the animations also.
Combat feels very wooden, but maybe one gets used to it later. But the way my character runs and jumps is a total joke. The way sitting down is animated...all i can say is oh my god.
I forced AA with my video drivers, had a major fps-impact with noticeable mouselag.
My low end test laptop is about 1/4 the CPU speed and 1/10th the GPU speed (Intel/AMD setup as well - and a laptop)
1900x1200 2x FSAA
30fps
You might want to have someone find out what is wrong with your system, unless you are just being dramatic to prove an opinion as fact.
The game is stylized, you know like Halo Reach, and the animations are a bit better than Halo Reach... (Go watch Red vs Blue in case you forgot.) The conversation scenes are rather impressive, and they are being rendered in real-time. (No PS3 shoving 3 day rendered cut-scenes to offset gameplay graphical quality issues.)
Of course, graphics are everything, gameplay means nothing and content means nothing... Which is why Halo has been such a horrible selling game. (What only broke game and media records 2 or 3 times?)
The final thought here is important, as I was impressed with the graphical jump between the end of November beta and this last weekend on even my low end test machine.
Do us all a big favor and can you show us some of these as examples? perhaps someone took videos of it with it at its "true" best?
I'm really curious to see these rumored Hi Rez graphics that are in this game.
I am not going to say the jump is Mario 64 to FarCry, but there was a lot of extra polish, some texture differences were very noticeable. Shadow settings no longer would dump FPS on some video cards, and lighting was improved.
The graphical settings panel was replaced, with the default options looking better than the high end options in the Nov betas, and high end settings increased quality beyond what had been seen in any betas.
I don't have screenshots, never even occurred to me that potential players would put 'pretty' over fun. I can name several MMOs from 2011 that have a lot of graphical advantages over SWTOR, but as much as I wanted to like them, pretty truly does not make a game worth my time.
If ya pre-ordered, you can see the game for yourself in less than week.
I would love to see cinema graphics in the game, and I don't personally 'love' the stylistic approach they used, but being a developer, I know why they did with the timeframe and when they started development. However, as much as I like a pretty game, I put more value in content, story, and fun.
(As I mentioned above, Halo is a stylized game, it isn't cutting edge, but it always had a good story and still is fun, and still holds records in sales and people still playing it online.)
Obviously SWTOR has better graphics than a game that was released 8 years ago, but the difference is surprisingly unsubstantial... Especially considering that SWG had a TON of character customization, more races, and most of the landscapes were dynamic (in that you could change ground formation by laying down buildings and cities).
I think this is not necessary proof that there is something 'wrong' with SWTOR... They are obviously invested in the 'casual' gamers, and the lack of complex gameplay, world immersion, or scaling graphics are a testament to their commitment to appealing to the casual gamer. That way not just you can play, but you can invite your grandma or 5 year old son to experience (and pay for) the game too.
The different business model will probably pay off in box sales but longevity is more questionable. Also it will make it a cookie cutter ($$) game as opposed to something that is remembered a decade down the road.
PS: right click and copy/paste urls to see larger images.
"any proof thsi is a snapshot from ingame or a still from a trailer becouse i remember swg looking like the first pick and not this one."
Did you think it is from a different game or what? I recognize the graphics, vehicles, armor, planet, and location.
Originally posted by Ocirusskd Originally posted by BarakIII
Originally posted by TruthXHurts
Originally posted by ktanner3
Originally posted by AzurePrower
Originally posted by TruthXHurts
Now show a picture of SWG NOT on the lowest graphic settings. You picked the absolute worst pic off the internet that you could.
In the face! In whose face exactly? Yours? Because seriously, that's still pretty dang bland, especially in comparison with TOR. [Mod Edit] any proof thsi is a snapshot from ingame or a still from a trailer becouse i remember swg looking like the first pick and not this one.
The detail is there for all to see other than the blind or haters who just love you guess it to hate.
Opinions here mattter little here the game is about to launch and go into orbit , rewarding all the hard work put in by Bioware.
Anyone who has been in game and seen the variety of environmemnts and detail on the players/ items and within the environmments knows this to be the case.
The fact that Bioware have catered for such a range of machines is a big plus and to be honest it's all about gameplay if that is non existent then the graphics matter very little and are only secondary.
See you all in Game .....
Anyone pushing the Ground Breaking Graphics within an MMO can do so at will but I think we understand that performance is a priority in these games and the two just are not compatible.
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
I loved the graphics. I found myself amazed i was playing in star wars i used the default settings . I saw in thanksgiving weekend beta that anti aliasing wasnt allowed
So i never tried to change my settings my gfs, brothers comp which i played on mostly is like 5 yrs old and ran this game just fine. I was at 100 fps most of the time .
The combat animations were not only smooth but i had no lag. And since my latency in tor was 53 i run at like 200 in wow. i didnt have to worry about my abilities going off 3 seconds after i cast them like i do in wow sometimes.
The rage i hear is that tor went with stylized graphics over realistic i get that argumetn all the tiem and they keep comign back and bashing all the other graphics stuff in tor.
when in fadt they just dont like the style tor went with . combat animations for me were really smooth and i love watchign blaster bolts bounce off my lightsabers.
Haha looks like crap. No difference in character from low to high. Oh wow look on High settign you get some little slashes in the dirt! WOW my lightsabre glows a tiny bit when I turn on bloom!
SWG had better graphics on highest setting.
SWG had some epic graphix.
Maybe on your comp....at lowest settings. This is how SWG looked on mine. Here is a screeny I took of my character. Doesn't look anything like the garbage you're trying to push as SWG graphics.
Haha looks like crap. No difference in character from low to high. Oh wow look on High settign you get some little slashes in the dirt! WOW my lightsabre glows a tiny bit when I turn on bloom!
SWG had better graphics on highest setting.
SWG had some epic graphix.
Maybe on your comp....at lowest settings. This is how SWG looked on mine. Here is a screeny I took of my character. Doesn't look anything like the garbage you're trying to push as SWG graphics.
I could post you some WoW screenshots that look better than Rift, but that doesn't make that screenshot an accurate representation of how the game looks all the time.
Haha looks like crap. No difference in character from low to high. Oh wow look on High settign you get some little slashes in the dirt! WOW my lightsabre glows a tiny bit when I turn on bloom!
SWG had better graphics on highest setting.
SWG had some epic graphix.
Maybe on your comp....at lowest settings. This is how SWG looked on mine. Here is a screeny I took of my character. Doesn't look anything like the garbage you're trying to push as SWG graphics.
I could post you some WoW screenshots that look better than Rift, but that doesn't make that screenshot an accurate representation of how the game looks all the time.
SWG had good graphics for its day...the screenshot was taken like a few months after its launch...and yes it looked like that for me all the time. Here is another, this one from FTL and another...
These are screenies I took when I was part of IGN.com...do these look anything like the image the other guy was passing off as good graphics in SWG? I do not think so. He posted an image of graphics maybe on the lowest settings.
Comments
Heres a ss with max settings and forced settings on nvdia card.
The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true.
Carl Sagan-
Liking or disliking it has nothing to do with how much difference there is in the low-high settings. What exactly are you trying to argue. I never said I disliked it. I only stated that there is VERY little difference between high and low. You get all bent out of shape if you even think someone is not praising the golden cow that is SWTOR.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
So Tera's mass PvP should look very laggy then...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXnoVWY6-i8&feature=player_embedded
I think not
You also stated that SWG has better graphics{mod edit}
In fact, the difference between low and high settings is substantial, the problem isn't scaling but the game overall not reaching contemporary graphics standards.
there are a few in dev with the crytek engine. f**k the masses I want a bf3 mmo lol
It's EA. Careful what you wish for.
BOYCOTTING EA / ORIGIN going forward.
amen to that brother
Have any of you beta testers with Nvidia GPU, tried FXAA injector? what performace are you gettin with it? I think a game runnin on 10 years old Directx 9 shouldnt have any troubles with it.
fxaa is very light wieght and should not drop your frames by more then 1-2fps if any. I have not tried it yet as you can just force AA through your video card control panal. for those who get crappy performance it may be a good option if they must have some AA
they could have a higher texture option at release very easyly
spoken like someone who has no idea about graphic design or why they make the design choices they made.
They chose to stylize their graphics so they would age well and look good years down the road.
Nothing about this looks "kiddie" at all. Lets try to be factually accurate and use language that speaks to our maturity and our profound ability to discuss a topic. [Mod Edit]
Ok, now that is hyperbole. SWG was good for its time, but it isn't SWTOR.
SWTOR is not Crysis, never was intended to have 'realistic' graphics, it is a stylized model. They worked around an engine model starting over 6 years ago, and for the graphics and engine to be 'modern' is rather thought out by the developers and the Hero engine developers, as you are looking at assets that were not possible when the game entered production.
As for the rendering differences, there are some worlds and areas, the shadows and lighting and complex meshes don't make much difference, as it is bright or a cave with flat surfaces, and picking one scene as an 'example' of the quality differences is disingenuous. I'm not sure of the intent of the OP, but conflating a topic they have little understanding of is a waste of your time and mine.
There are some graphics in SWTOR that are 'above' normal outside of the Crysis engine class.
- Animations are well done, fluid and react appropriately to the combat and interaction of the environment.
-Conversation cut-scenes are rendered in "real-time" and even on low end graphical systems, look good, fluid and with the director camera angles are immersive. (Sadly this is often overlooked even in reviews, as the conversations are well done, with good coordinated voice animations, especially considering it is real-time and not the traditional PS3 trick of pre-rendered at a quality level that 10 PS3s couldn't do in real-time.)
Oh, and final thought...
The video comes from before the final beta, where the graphics were turned up, and the new graphical settings were added to the game. So the video and screenshots people are throwing around are already outdated, as Bioware waited til the end of the beta to finish turning up the graphical features.
The final thought here is important, as I was impressed with the graphical jump between the end of November beta and this last weekend on even my low end test machine.
Do us all a big favor and can you show us some of these as examples? perhaps someone took videos of it with it at its "true" best?
I'm really curious to see these rumored Hi Rez graphics that are in this game.
Really?
My low end test laptop is about 1/4 the CPU speed and 1/10th the GPU speed (Intel/AMD setup as well - and a laptop)
1900x1200 2x FSAA
30fps
You might want to have someone find out what is wrong with your system, unless you are just being dramatic to prove an opinion as fact.
The game is stylized, you know like Halo Reach, and the animations are a bit better than Halo Reach... (Go watch Red vs Blue in case you forgot.) The conversation scenes are rather impressive, and they are being rendered in real-time. (No PS3 shoving 3 day rendered cut-scenes to offset gameplay graphical quality issues.)
Of course, graphics are everything, gameplay means nothing and content means nothing... Which is why Halo has been such a horrible selling game. (What only broke game and media records 2 or 3 times?)
In whose face exactly? Yours? Because seriously, that's still pretty dang bland, especially in comparison with TOR. [Mod Edit]
I am not going to say the jump is Mario 64 to FarCry, but there was a lot of extra polish, some texture differences were very noticeable. Shadow settings no longer would dump FPS on some video cards, and lighting was improved.
The graphical settings panel was replaced, with the default options looking better than the high end options in the Nov betas, and high end settings increased quality beyond what had been seen in any betas.
I don't have screenshots, never even occurred to me that potential players would put 'pretty' over fun. I can name several MMOs from 2011 that have a lot of graphical advantages over SWTOR, but as much as I wanted to like them, pretty truly does not make a game worth my time.
If ya pre-ordered, you can see the game for yourself in less than week.
I would love to see cinema graphics in the game, and I don't personally 'love' the stylistic approach they used, but being a developer, I know why they did with the timeframe and when they started development. However, as much as I like a pretty game, I put more value in content, story, and fun.
(As I mentioned above, Halo is a stylized game, it isn't cutting edge, but it always had a good story and still is fun, and still holds records in sales and people still playing it online.)
any proof thsi is a snapshot from ingame or a still from a trailer becouse i remember swg looking like the first pick and not this one.
Obviously SWTOR has better graphics than a game that was released 8 years ago, but the difference is surprisingly unsubstantial... Especially considering that SWG had a TON of character customization, more races, and most of the landscapes were dynamic (in that you could change ground formation by laying down buildings and cities).
I think this is not necessary proof that there is something 'wrong' with SWTOR... They are obviously invested in the 'casual' gamers, and the lack of complex gameplay, world immersion, or scaling graphics are a testament to their commitment to appealing to the casual gamer. That way not just you can play, but you can invite your grandma or 5 year old son to experience (and pay for) the game too.
The different business model will probably pay off in box sales but longevity is more questionable. Also it will make it a cookie cutter ($$) game as opposed to something that is remembered a decade down the road.
PS: right click and copy/paste urls to see larger images.
"any proof thsi is a snapshot from ingame or a still from a trailer becouse i remember swg looking like the first pick and not this one."
Did you think it is from a different game or what? I recognize the graphics, vehicles, armor, planet, and location.
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
Now show a picture of SWG NOT on the lowest graphic settings. You picked the absolute worst pic off the internet that you could.
In the face!
In whose face exactly? Yours? Because seriously, that's still pretty dang bland, especially in comparison with TOR. [Mod Edit]
any proof thsi is a snapshot from ingame or a still from a trailer becouse i remember swg looking like the first pick and not this one.
There is no UI, so the picture doesn't count.
-Azure Prower
http://www.youtube.com/AzurePrower
The graphics in game are fantastic;
The detail is there for all to see other than the blind or haters who just love you guess it to hate.
Opinions here mattter little here the game is about to launch and go into orbit , rewarding all the hard work put in by Bioware.
Anyone who has been in game and seen the variety of environmemnts and detail on the players/ items and within the environmments knows this to be the case.
The fact that Bioware have catered for such a range of machines is a big plus and to be honest it's all about gameplay if that is non existent then the graphics matter very little and are only secondary.
See you all in Game .....
Anyone pushing the Ground Breaking Graphics within an MMO can do so at will but I think we understand that performance is a priority in these games and the two just are not compatible.
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
I loved the graphics. I found myself amazed i was playing in star wars i used the default settings . I saw in thanksgiving weekend beta that anti aliasing wasnt allowed
So i never tried to change my settings my gfs, brothers comp which i played on mostly is like 5 yrs old and ran this game just fine. I was at 100 fps most of the time .
The combat animations were not only smooth but i had no lag. And since my latency in tor was 53 i run at like 200 in wow. i didnt have to worry about my abilities going off 3 seconds after i cast them like i do in wow sometimes.
The rage i hear is that tor went with stylized graphics over realistic i get that argumetn all the tiem and they keep comign back and bashing all the other graphics stuff in tor.
when in fadt they just dont like the style tor went with . combat animations for me were really smooth and i love watchign blaster bolts bounce off my lightsabers.
Maybe on your comp....at lowest settings. This is how SWG looked on mine. Here is a screeny I took of my character. Doesn't look anything like the garbage you're trying to push as SWG graphics.
I could post you some WoW screenshots that look better than Rift, but that doesn't make that screenshot an accurate representation of how the game looks all the time.
SWG had good graphics for its day...the screenshot was taken like a few months after its launch...and yes it looked like that for me all the time. Here is another, this one from FTL and another...
These are screenies I took when I was part of IGN.com...do these look anything like the image the other guy was passing off as good graphics in SWG? I do not think so. He posted an image of graphics maybe on the lowest settings.
Yep SWG had terrible graphics...pure garbage.