Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Graphics vs Artwork
wrightstuf
Member UncommonPosts: 659
Lately, i've seen alot of hot debate over which MMOs have good graphics, without much said about artwork.
Its my opinion that they both should share equal importance.
The best example i've seen is Tera vs GW2...The graphics in Tera are first rate. Truly visually stunning. The artwork, on the other hand doesnt impress me. The world just doesnt seem to have character or that "alive" feel to it.
GW2, to me is just the opposite. Yes the graphics are good, but IMO, dont hold a candle to Tera. Its the artwork and the attention to detail in the artwork where GW2 really shines. GW2 just feels more like an "alive" virtual world, and its the artwork that does that
Comments
for me personally, i dont mind graphic or artstyle, therefore i still find some SNES games amazing :P
but i dunno..? can we interpretates this?
- graphic - raw - a girl with beautiful skin and face feature and body curve naturally
- artwork - post production - a super model with beautiful stunning make up and wander bra along with superb photographer?
maybe? :P
edit ------------
lol sorry, wonder bra
i dont know what are those called :P
I think you're straying a little too far from what "Artwork" actually means.
Normally, when people refer to the "Art Style" or "Art Work" they're talking about the overall "theme" of the product. How "stylized" are the graphics? Is the "Art Direction" they went with too over the top bright & colorful, or is it dark & gloomy with realistic-like textures?
Using your two references. I'd agree that TERA has the superior graphics, however the "Environment" lacks HEAVILY in TERA. They over-use "Bloom" and "HDR" in order to hide the really bad attention to detail they put into their environments.
I also agree that, from the outside looking in, GW2 has the BEST "Environments" i've seen in a long time. Also, yes GW2 does have some pretty dated graphics, however they weren't selling themselves as the next "Age of Conan" so it's absolutely acceptable that GW2 looks the way it does.
As for the "Art Style" of GW2 I have to say I adore gothic & medieval themed armors. Especially "Nordic" art styles such as the Norn's armor, weapons, and dress.
TLDR; Yes, GW2's Artstyle is superior to TERA, and TERA has a MUCH better "Graphics" engine by far. However, you strayed a bit in understanding the difference between "Art" and "Environmental Graphics".
Cheers
!
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
Go check Pora Elinu
Fairy Land
and the "avatar" zone and say that again.
Tera completaely crush gw2 both art and graphics
a "wander bra" lol...sorry, bud, i couldnt resist
Its simple really.
As an artist that makes game art, i can tell you there are two core areas to focus on... art direction (the concept and vision) and assets, the meshes and texture work.
Even good mesh work can look horible if the engine cant render it well. Tera for example, runs on the unreal engine which can do quite a few things to make it look good, including but not limited to zone based post processing.
Guild wars 2 has amazing art direction, on the flip side they chose to use a lot of low resolution texture tiling and simple mesh work. Mesh work that i would expect from a jr high school student learning how to make 3d art.
Tera on the other hand has some great mesh work, decent UV maps in which to showcase the textures. The unreal engine allows for some good effects and beautification of the assets.
It seems like GW2 does avoid using normal maps and spec maps. Normal maps fake detail by offering lighting information with out actually having to model out shapes in which to cast the shadow. Spec maps create levels of shine and glossyness. Together with a normal map you can achieve very beautiful graphics. They most likey chose to forego this for performance reasons though for a next gen game, it shouldnt be left out for those who run higher end computers. They chose to slop tiled textures on many objects, which is sad because you see patterns and simplistic design.
Tera makes use of more UV space to create unique objects, which make it look better, on the flip side their assets are usually fewer and in between.
Both games could have been much better and its a shame neither really lived up to the concept art entirely. Guild wars 2 wins out with the best art direction i have seen in a long time.
I just logged off from there like an hour ago. I have a 35 ranger.
Sorry, but i stand by what i originally posted. Pora Elinu struck me not much different than the level 20 zone with the basilisks. I'm speaking of the game overall, not just one particular zone. Sure, some zones may be better than the next, but really thats more personal preference.
Honestly this discussion is moot until GW2 is actually released. Like Tera is now. Yes maybe what we've seen is what we will get, but maybe it isn't. GW2 hasn't been optimised for most newer hardware yet and is currently CPU bound. The GPU is barely used. So we could see an increase in graphics closer to release.
It doesnt work that way. Once you enter beta phases, the art assets are 99.9% of the time final. Optimizing doesnt mean worse graphics, it means they are tweaking the engine and servers to make it run better, getting rid of memory leaks and such, not adding more graphical content. They also wouldnt have lifted the NDA if they were not satisfied with the look and feel of the art in GW2. In short, what you see is what you get. This doenst mean they wont update in the future, possibly via expansion (which is how they make money with this b2p business model), but semi open beta is more about gameplay and greasing the wheels with very little polishing in between.
Don't care about either. They should spend more time on content and depth rather then pretty pictures. Maybe then their sub numbers wouldn't plummet after the first few months.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
I feel the same way Wright, I even posted it in another thread. There is a big difference between Art Direction and the Capacity of the Graphics Engine.
My theory is that Tera limits the visual customization and weapon choices of its classes in order to bring out some amazing graphics, whereas GW2 keeps more versatility in its classes and a more OPEN explorable world while sacrificing graphical power.
Needless to say, I prefer GW2's art direction more than Tera, eventhough GW2 did have BIG SWORDS and some SKIMPY OUTFITS on its female characters, just not as much as Tera.
One of Extra Credits' earlier episodes was about Graphics vs. Aesthetics, which is maybe a better term than "artwork". Basically, better graphics alone are not the answer. The graphics are a tool to allow you to fully express the aesthetic. If the aesthetic was not carefully crafted, it won't be appealing no matter how high you raise the poly count or the resolution of the textures.
At the same time, aesthetics are much more subjective. Graphical fidelity can be measured and directly compared, but aesthetic appeal will change from person to person. Disagreements about which game looks better than the other will often boil down to differing opinions.