Originally posted by Ranma13 There's not a lot of EVE fanboys out there. We could care less what MMORPG you play. If you don't like EVE, go play something else and don't bother us. If you play EVE, welcome aboard. It's that simple. We're not going to go "OMG WoW sux come play EVE".
obviously you've not read too many threads on this forum then... Maybe he hasnt but I have and it mostly consisted of you and a few other regular "eve-haters" running around telling everyone how much eve sucks and calling people fanboys when they respond. I think that is an accurate description of the whole "eve-fanboi" situation. And yes I really do think eve-players dont give a damn how eve is rated by some website.
Like zOMG, Gamespot seriouzlie has no idear what their tlking about! Theyr ratin system sucks because theyre opinions are diferentt then mine!!!! I am a biased little drooling fanboy!
First things first. Don't listen to reviews. Demo a game before you actually buy it. Would you by an album from a band that you've never heard before? Of course you wouldn't. So why in the hell would you buy a game that you hadn't played and liked before?
As for graphics...... I've been an avid gamer since I was four years old, way back in the days of the Atari 2600. I've seen graphics grow by leaps and bounds since then and now, at the age of 31, I can honestly say that I'm beyond being impressed by flashy visuals. The whole industry has be pushed forward by hardware advances alone for far too long. For the last five or six years, we've been repackaging the same tired gameplay in prettier packages and, as the 2004 fourth quarter reports showed, people are starting to get bored with it. Add to that the fact that we've reached something of a glass ceiling in hardware. The human eye can only see at 60 frames per second, so making games that display 120 fps is a waste of time. Likewise, after a certain polygon count is reached, the effects of more polygons becomes practically unnoticeable. And we have to consider that we've probably pushed technology as far as we can go with real-time graphics. If you'll notice, the Doom 3 and F.E.A.R. egines both run at around 30 frames per seconed so that they can push as many polygons as possible. Sixteen frames per second is the absolute bottom of acceptable frame rates and is used in most cartoons. Don't think that the next generation of graphics engines won't drop to that level in order to get more punch.
But what happens after that? I've actually heard people make statements that games are all about graphics to them. What happens when graphics don't advance or the advances just aren't noticable to the human eye? What happens to the industry? If you aren't about the gameplay, you aren't a gamer. Go watch a movie filled with special effects or read comic books. The "oh wow" factor of a new graphics engine only lasts about ten minutes anyway. After that, if there isn't a solid game under the pretty pictures, It becomes just another coaster.
Originally posted by reavo I bet the EVE Online guys are going to have a lot to say. hahahahaha
That reviews in gamespot are just one person opinios. There is also very positive reviews of eve in magazines like pc-gamers uk, pc-zone and others, but neither that means anything more that someone opinion of the game.
I have read some of the gamespot mmorpg reviews and often I get feeling that writer didnt play game more than week or two max.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe First things first. Don't listen to reviews. Demo a game before you actually buy it. Would you by an album from a band that you've never heard before? Of course you wouldn't. So why in the hell would you buy a game that you hadn't played and liked before? As for graphics...... I've been an avid gamer since I was four years old, way back in the days of the Atari 2600. I've seen graphics grow by leaps and bounds since then and now, at the age of 31, I can honestly say that I'm beyond being impressed by flashy visuals. The whole industry has be pushed forward by hardware advances alone for far too long. For the last five or six years, we've been repackaging the same tired gameplay in prettier packages and, as the 2004 fourth quarter reports showed, people are starting to get bored with it. Add to that the fact that we've reached something of a glass ceiling in hardware. The human eye can only see at 60 frames per second, so making games that display 120 fps is a waste of time. Likewise, after a certain polygon count is reached, the effects of more polygons becomes practically unnoticeable. And we have to consider that we've probably pushed technology as far as we can go with real-time graphics. If you'll notice, the Doom 3 and F.E.A.R. egines both run at around 30 frames per seconed so that they can push as many polygons as possible. Sixteen frames per second is the absolute bottom of acceptable frame rates and is used in most cartoons. Don't think that the next generation of graphics engines won't drop to that level in order to get more punch. But what happens after that? I've actually heard people make statements that games are all about graphics to them. What happens when graphics don't advance or the advances just aren't noticable to the human eye? What happens to the industry? If you aren't about the gameplay, you aren't a gamer. Go watch a movie filled with special effects or read comic books. The "oh wow" factor of a new graphics engine only lasts about ten minutes anyway. After that, if there isn't a solid game under the pretty pictures, It becomes just another coaster.
Even though I agree on most of what you say, I wouldn't agree on the part about the human uncapable of seeing over 60 refreshes. Maybe it's the moniter, but on my moniter I can clearly, each and everytime, see when the refreshrate is on 60, 72 or 85 hz. Maybe is moniter.
Furthermore, getting above 60 fps is also good. Since you will be able to tolerate drop-downs because of suddently "heat(meaning a lot of things going on)" in a game. That is needed for online games. Furthermore you can feel the difference.
Originally posted by Ranma13 There's not a lot of EVE fanboys out there. We could care less what MMORPG you play. If you don't like EVE, go play something else and don't bother us. If you play EVE, welcome aboard. It's that simple. We're not going to go "OMG WoW sux come play EVE".
obviously you've not read too many threads on this forum then... Maybe he hasnt but I have and it mostly consisted of you and a few other regular "eve-haters" running around telling everyone how much eve sucks and calling people fanboys when they respond. I think that is an accurate description of the whole "eve-fanboi" situation. And yes I really do think eve-players dont give a damn how eve is rated by some website.
i don't hate eve, i don't bash eve. i just bash the eve fanbois who don't stop.
i've said many times that i felt eve is boring, but if certain changes were made, i would play it. the same is true for a few of the other supposed "eve-haters". i don't give a damn how its rated either, so you can start shutting up now and stop trying to cause trouble.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe First things first. Don't listen to reviews. Demo a game before you actually buy it. Would you by an album from a band that you've never heard before? Of course you wouldn't. So why in the hell would you buy a game that you hadn't played and liked before? As for graphics...... I've been an avid gamer since I was four years old, way back in the days of the Atari 2600. I've seen graphics grow by leaps and bounds since then and now, at the age of 31, I can honestly say that I'm beyond being impressed by flashy visuals. The whole industry has be pushed forward by hardware advances alone for far too long. For the last five or six years, we've been repackaging the same tired gameplay in prettier packages and, as the 2004 fourth quarter reports showed, people are starting to get bored with it. Add to that the fact that we've reached something of a glass ceiling in hardware. The human eye can only see at 60 frames per second, so making games that display 120 fps is a waste of time. Likewise, after a certain polygon count is reached, the effects of more polygons becomes practically unnoticeable. And we have to consider that we've probably pushed technology as far as we can go with real-time graphics. If you'll notice, the Doom 3 and F.E.A.R. egines both run at around 30 frames per seconed so that they can push as many polygons as possible. Sixteen frames per second is the absolute bottom of acceptable frame rates and is used in most cartoons. Don't think that the next generation of graphics engines won't drop to that level in order to get more punch. But what happens after that? I've actually heard people make statements that games are all about graphics to them. What happens when graphics don't advance or the advances just aren't noticable to the human eye? What happens to the industry? If you aren't about the gameplay, you aren't a gamer. Go watch a movie filled with special effects or read comic books. The "oh wow" factor of a new graphics engine only lasts about ten minutes anyway. After that, if there isn't a solid game under the pretty pictures, It becomes just another coaster.
i buy cds of bands i haven't heard before. sometimes i'm greatly surpised at how good it is, other times it sucks. its called taking a chance and trying something new.
the people who say graphics make the game are mentally retarded. if there is no gameplay, there is no game.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe First things first. Don't listen to reviews. Demo a game before you actually buy it. Would you by an album from a band that you've never heard before? Of course you wouldn't. So why in the hell would you buy a game that you hadn't played and liked before?
As for graphics...... I've been an avid gamer since I was four years old, way back in the days of the Atari 2600. I've seen graphics grow by leaps and bounds since then and now, at the age of 31, I can honestly say that I'm beyond being impressed by flashy visuals. The whole industry has be pushed forward by hardware advances alone for far too long. For the last five or six years, we've been repackaging the same tired gameplay in prettier packages and, as the 2004 fourth quarter reports showed, people are starting to get bored with it. Add to that the fact that we've reached something of a glass ceiling in hardware. The human eye can only see at 60 frames per second, so making games that display 120 fps is a waste of time. Likewise, after a certain polygon count is reached, the effects of more polygons becomes practically unnoticeable. And we have to consider that we've probably pushed technology as far as we can go with real-time graphics. If you'll notice, the Doom 3 and F.E.A.R. egines both run at around 30 frames per seconed so that they can push as many polygons as possible. Sixteen frames per second is the absolute bottom of acceptable frame rates and is used in most cartoons. Don't think that the next generation of graphics engines won't drop to that level in order to get more punch. But what happens after that? I've actually heard people make statements that games are all about graphics to them. What happens when graphics don't advance or the advances just aren't noticable to the human eye? What happens to the industry? If you aren't about the gameplay, you aren't a gamer. Go watch a movie filled with special effects or read comic books. The "oh wow" factor of a new graphics engine only lasts about ten minutes anyway. After that, if there isn't a solid game under the pretty pictures, It becomes just another coaster.
Even though I agree on most of what you say, I wouldn't agree on the part about the human uncapable of seeing over 60 refreshes. Maybe it's the moniter, but on my moniter I can clearly, each and everytime, see when the refreshrate is on 60, 72 or 85 hz. Maybe is moniter.
Furthermore, getting above 60 fps is also good. Since you will be able to tolerate drop-downs because of suddently "heat(meaning a lot of things going on)" in a game. That is needed for online games. Furthermore you can feel the difference.
i think the highest refresh rate thats noticeable by the human eye is like 85hz. anything above that isn't noticeable. i read that in an article somewhere. its differentfrom person to person and probably monitor to monitor, but the average person won't notice a difference past 85 or so. personally, i can't tell the difference between 60 and 75.
Okay, then just go watch this battle compliments of the play-doh funwar factory.
all i see is a bunch of playdough monsters runnign around, then a bunch of playdough characters fight a playdough dragon...
Okay Ashkent. But seriously. Have you ever tasted Play-Doh? I have and it tastes a lot better than ink and paint. So when I'm playing EQ2 I just think it looks tastier.
Taking out the games I haven't played in that list, it's in almost the EXACT order I would place them in if asked to rate them on how much fun I had while playing them. So, I think it's a pretty good ranking system (at least it matches my tastes, it obviously doesn't match others).
And as to the WoW v EQ2 graphics thing. A mate who doesn't play MMOs came to visit while I was in the middle of playing WoW. His exact words were "That's amazing I didn't think that sort of game had such good graphics". When I showed him EQ2 later (after quiting WoW) he just said, meh. He was much more impressed with WoW. Just an RL example from a non-biased source.
EDIT: WoW, Guild Wars, City of Heroes, Everquest 2 (I'd put this above CoH now, it's been improved since they rated it too I think), Anarchy Online, Horizons, Eve Online, Saga of Ryzom. That's pretty much my order, Horizons would probably fall below EVE too actually.
Okay, then just go watch this battle compliments of the play-doh funwar factory.
all i see is a bunch of playdough monsters runnign around, then a bunch of playdough characters fight a playdough dragon...
Okay Ashkent. But seriously. Have you ever tasted Play-Doh? I have and it tastes a lot better than ink and paint. So when I'm playing EQ2 I just think it looks tastier.
well that explains some of the responses i see in these forums...people are eating playdough, paint, and ink....
Gamespot takes bribes in thier game ratings so thier never accurate, even for console games. They are also major fanboys for certain companies and always rate those particular companies higher.
Also EQ2's graphics blow, the modelers only had 1 day to make a 4k poly model, texture, rig, and pose it or they would get fired. That doesnt exactly leave enough time to do the models well. So what it ended up with are high inaccuretly placed polies with single tonal characters despite the typical animal/human has atleast 5 different skin tones. Not to mention the world is pretty empty and spaced out. Very small amount of trees and meshes most areas are huge grass/dirt lands. When you compare EQ2 to the graphical quality of Hero's Journey and rank Hero's journey a 10, then EQ2 would be an 8.
What I think is funny is that people think they are getting better animation when they are at 120 Frames per second. Realistically the only thing you are doing when trying to obtain 120 frames per second is overworking your computer. You can get fluid animation at 24 FPS, but some people have been known to be able to see higher so 30 FPS is the industry standard. You would have to be a super leet computer chipped person to need 120 FPS for fluid animation. Heck you can run animation with descent quality at 12 FPS, the chopiness will be slightly noticable at that speed but not too much.
Originally posted by hadz Taking out the games I haven't played in that list, it's in almost the EXACT order I would place them in if asked to rate them on how much fun I had while playing them. So, I think it's a pretty good ranking system (at least it matches my tastes, it obviously doesn't match others). And as to the WoW v EQ2 graphics thing. A mate who doesn't play MMOs came to visit while I was in the middle of playing WoW. His exact words were "That's amazing I didn't think that sort of game had such good graphics". When I showed him EQ2 later (after quiting WoW) he just said, meh. He was much more impressed with WoW. Just an RL example from a non-biased source. EDIT: WoW, Guild Wars, City of Heroes, Everquest 2 (I'd put this above CoH now, it's been improved since they rated it too I think), Anarchy Online, Horizons, Eve Online, Saga of Ryzom. That's pretty much my order, Horizons would probably fall below EVE too actually.
I've heard people say that too. But I've also heard people say the EQ2 graphics look better. One of my friends at work quit playing WoW when he came over to see EQ2. And he's still playing. I think this debate could go on forever.
Probably the only way to settle it would be to setup some measurements and see how each one meets them. But then people would disagree on those too, so whatever.
I'm no graphics know it all, but it just seems to me that EQ2 uses a lot more of the features I bought my high end video card for. Have you checked the different settings in EQ2's video options? There's tons. And yes, WoW looks good. But I like those added video features in EQ2, like the shadows, the reflective surfaces, and stuff. It's just cool technology. The reason I bought my new SLI setup.
Originally posted by reavo I've heard people say that too. But I've also heard people say the EQ2 graphics look better. One of my friends at work quit playing WoW when he came over to see EQ2. And he's still playing. I think this debate could go on forever.
Probably the only way to settle it would be to setup some measurements and see how each one meets them. But then people would disagree on those too, so whatever.
I'm no graphics know it all, but it just seems to me that EQ2 uses a lot more of the features I bought my high end video card for. Have you checked the different settings in EQ2's video options? There's tons. And yes, WoW looks good. But I like those added video features in EQ2, like the shadows, the reflective surfaces, and stuff. It's just cool technology. The reason I bought my new SLI setup.
I too think that from a purely technical point of view EQ2's graphics are better than WoW's, but WoW's graphical "feel" and style is a lot better than EQ2's IMHO. That's why I believe, to the "inexperienced" at least, WoW will often be more impressive than EQ2.
The difference on the features is caused when each of these games entered development. WoW was in development for 6 years. EQ2 was in development for 2 years, so the graphics they were set for and the options they had available were different. The new games coming in 2007 have something called normal mapping attached to them so they can make a low-res model looks like an extremely high res model.
That being said, in WoW towards the end of its development had like 200 artists working on it; while EQ2 only had about 70 artists and had a lower development time. It should be obvious with the lack of a development team and time why the graphics ended up not taking full advantage of the technology.
I personally read GameSpot and i found their reviews to be mostly accurate and objective ones. The Reviewer does has his share of opinion (of course) but he does tries (and ususally do a good job at) being objective and evaluating the game in the various factors.
What you must consider, though, and that is why EVE get 6.6 for example, is that this game are valuated at RELEASE and then never re-evaluated again.
So, EVE, at release, was missing a loads of the features it has now, it was unstable, technically full of bugs and so on... like many other mmorpgs before it (that is also why AO is rated so low, same reason, it was practically unplayable when it got released).
DaoC, EQ2 and WoW all got relativly painless launches in which A) the servers didn't crashed every 2 seconds (for DAoC) or there was a quite load of content from the get-go and the game had few bugs and the feeling of "finished product" instead of "paid-beta" (WoW and EQ2).
The reviews of older games are not anymore accurate. There has been lots of time for the game to develop in the meanwhile and while this problem is ususally fixed by reviewing the expansions (that is an occasion to also see what progress the game as a whole did), in the case of EVE their expansion was never released as a commercial product, so it never got a second review.
"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"
the problem is a mmorpg is continually changing and requires more time than simply first impressions. WoW I don't think deserves that high a score, in terms of popularity and how much time they've spent creating every part of the world it deserves a 9.0 but not anything else asuch. Everquest 2 I can agree with. Saga of Ryzom, I played and the first impressions put me off. Anarchy Online- played wasn't too impressed. DaOC, decent game wasn't as good as the game I was playing at the time but is it decent. AC2- my impressions of this game were brilliant but from what I can gather 1-20 is good and the rest is just poorly structured. This could have had a lot more subscribers if it had got things right. So a rating of 8 is probably just. FF11, not played but it is the 2nd most popular game outside of Asia behind WoW.
Of the big multi-platform sites, I've found Gamespy (now part of IGN) the best for reviewing MMORPGs. Even the reviewers who aren't fans of the genre put together great hands-on previews. Gamespy's previews of FFXI, WoW and EQII encouraged me to buy the games because they brought the worlds to life.
Hated the game as it turned out but it goes to show that the quality of review writing is perhaps more important for MMORPGs than it is for other genres.
Originally posted by Cleffy That being said, in WoW towards the end of its development had like 200 artists working on it; while EQ2 only had about 70 artists and had a lower development time. It should be obvious with the lack of a development team and time why the graphics ended up not taking full advantage of the technology.
I'm confused. Your saying that with the lack of a large development team and time is implying your talking about EQ2 here given your numbers on years in development and staff. But anyone who's played both games knows EQ2 takes advantage of tons more visual technologies than WoW.
Have you seen what the environment looks like when it rains in EQ2? It's awesome. Or the oceans? Or the armor on the models? Or the facial expressions? And the spell effects, geez those are magnificent. Not to mention the shadowing in the game. And the flora actaully moves when you run by it. And then there's the specular lighting in the game. When I turn that on in the settings it's like night and day.
For a technology enthusiast that's why I love EQ2 so much. The game itself is awesome, but then it's got all these added toys to play with on top of the fun game. So I don't care how much time or how many artists were on the team. They added more technology into the game. And a lot of people are into that awesome new hardware that comes out. Go Nvidia!!!
None of these so called websites that review games rate honestly. If they did they would loose advertisement dollars. Even this website pads it reviews with sugar coating and pulls its punches, just look at the review they gave SWG and some of the scores they gave it. So I have learned to not trust them, I trust what players say. It is up to the players to spread the truth about games. I use to write reviews for a website back when UO was first launched called MMORPG Haven ran by players for players and they did not rely on advertisment dollars - so what was written there were honest reviews. To bad the owner decided to close its doors, because then you'd see how a review should be written.
I think that's another thing some of you guys are overlooking. Look at the dates Gamespot reviewed these games on. They are OLD OLD reviews. They haven't updated their scoring based on TODAY's version of the games including all the patches and development some of these titles have gone through.
I'm sure these ratings would change if Gamespot actually did a current review of the game based on how they are now. For instance, EVE would go up drastically and SWG would drop.
In my opinion Gamespot is a bit goofy and harsh in a lot of their reviews, yet very lenient for others. Also, as has been stated several times before, it's about opinion. They couldn't stop ranting about BF2 so I decided to pick it up, I didn't really end up liking it (although mastering bombing in a jet ranks right up there with the awesome), but I guess everyone liked that game, I like CS:S more, I got straight up addicted to that.
Comments
Maybe he hasnt but I have and it mostly consisted of you and a few other regular "eve-haters" running around telling everyone how much eve sucks and calling people fanboys when they respond. I think that is an accurate description of the whole "eve-fanboi" situation. And yes I really do think eve-players dont give a damn how eve is rated by some website.
I think WoW's is better, EQ2 went for a photorealistic look, and it ended up looking like ass.
WoW took a stylized appraoch, and it looks great.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Like zOMG, Gamespot seriouzlie has no idear what their tlking about! Theyr ratin system sucks because theyre opinions are diferentt then mine!!!! I am a biased little drooling fanboy!
like omgwtfbbq.
First things first. Don't listen to reviews. Demo a game before you actually buy it. Would you by an album from a band that you've never heard before? Of course you wouldn't. So why in the hell would you buy a game that you hadn't played and liked before?
As for graphics...... I've been an avid gamer since I was four years old, way back in the days of the Atari 2600. I've seen graphics grow by leaps and bounds since then and now, at the age of 31, I can honestly say that I'm beyond being impressed by flashy visuals. The whole industry has be pushed forward by hardware advances alone for far too long. For the last five or six years, we've been repackaging the same tired gameplay in prettier packages and, as the 2004 fourth quarter reports showed, people are starting to get bored with it. Add to that the fact that we've reached something of a glass ceiling in hardware. The human eye can only see at 60 frames per second, so making games that display 120 fps is a waste of time. Likewise, after a certain polygon count is reached, the effects of more polygons becomes practically unnoticeable. And we have to consider that we've probably pushed technology as far as we can go with real-time graphics. If you'll notice, the Doom 3 and F.E.A.R. egines both run at around 30 frames per seconed so that they can push as many polygons as possible. Sixteen frames per second is the absolute bottom of acceptable frame rates and is used in most cartoons. Don't think that the next generation of graphics engines won't drop to that level in order to get more punch.
But what happens after that? I've actually heard people make statements that games are all about graphics to them. What happens when graphics don't advance or the advances just aren't noticable to the human eye? What happens to the industry? If you aren't about the gameplay, you aren't a gamer. Go watch a movie filled with special effects or read comic books. The "oh wow" factor of a new graphics engine only lasts about ten minutes anyway. After that, if there isn't a solid game under the pretty pictures, It becomes just another coaster.
That reviews in gamespot are just one person opinios. There is also very positive reviews of eve in magazines like pc-gamers uk, pc-zone and others, but neither that means anything more that someone opinion of the game.
I have read some of the gamespot mmorpg reviews and often I get feeling that writer didnt play game more than week or two max.
Even though I agree on most of what you say, I wouldn't agree on the part about the human uncapable of seeing over 60 refreshes. Maybe it's the moniter, but on my moniter I can clearly, each and everytime, see when the refreshrate is on 60, 72 or 85 hz. Maybe is moniter.
Furthermore, getting above 60 fps is also good. Since you will be able to tolerate drop-downs because of suddently "heat(meaning a lot of things going on)" in a game. That is needed for online games. Furthermore you can feel the difference.
--------------------------------------------
Maybe he hasnt but I have and it mostly consisted of you and a few other regular "eve-haters" running around telling everyone how much eve sucks and calling people fanboys when they respond. I think that is an accurate description of the whole "eve-fanboi" situation. And yes I really do think eve-players dont give a damn how eve is rated by some website.
i don't hate eve, i don't bash eve. i just bash the eve fanbois who don't stop.
i've said many times that i felt eve is boring, but if certain changes were made, i would play it. the same is true for a few of the other supposed "eve-haters". i don't give a damn how its rated either, so you can start shutting up now and stop trying to cause trouble.
i buy cds of bands i haven't heard before. sometimes i'm greatly surpised at how good it is, other times it sucks. its called taking a chance and trying something new.
the people who say graphics make the game are mentally retarded. if there is no gameplay, there is no game.
Even though I agree on most of what you say, I wouldn't agree on the part about the human uncapable of seeing over 60 refreshes. Maybe it's the moniter, but on my moniter I can clearly, each and everytime, see when the refreshrate is on 60, 72 or 85 hz. Maybe is moniter.
Furthermore, getting above 60 fps is also good. Since you will be able to tolerate drop-downs because of suddently "heat(meaning a lot of things going on)" in a game. That is needed for online games. Furthermore you can feel the difference.
i think the highest refresh rate thats noticeable by the human eye is like 85hz. anything above that isn't noticeable. i read that in an article somewhere. its differentfrom person to person and probably monitor to monitor, but the average person won't notice a difference past 85 or so. personally, i can't tell the difference between 60 and 75.
all i see is a bunch of playdough monsters runnign around, then a bunch of playdough characters fight a playdough dragon...
Okay Ashkent. But seriously. Have you ever tasted Play-Doh? I have and it tastes a lot better than ink and paint. So when I'm playing EQ2 I just think it looks tastier.
Taking out the games I haven't played in that list, it's in almost the EXACT order I would place them in if asked to rate them on how much fun I had while playing them. So, I think it's a pretty good ranking system (at least it matches my tastes, it obviously doesn't match others).
And as to the WoW v EQ2 graphics thing. A mate who doesn't play MMOs came to visit while I was in the middle of playing WoW. His exact words were "That's amazing I didn't think that sort of game had such good graphics". When I showed him EQ2 later (after quiting WoW) he just said, meh. He was much more impressed with WoW. Just an RL example from a non-biased source.
EDIT: WoW, Guild Wars, City of Heroes, Everquest 2 (I'd put this above CoH now, it's been improved since they rated it too I think), Anarchy Online, Horizons, Eve Online, Saga of Ryzom. That's pretty much my order, Horizons would probably fall below EVE too actually.
all i see is a bunch of playdough monsters runnign around, then a bunch of playdough characters fight a playdough dragon...
Okay Ashkent. But seriously. Have you ever tasted Play-Doh? I have and it tastes a lot better than ink and paint. So when I'm playing EQ2 I just think it looks tastier.
well that explains some of the responses i see in these forums...people are eating playdough, paint, and ink....
Gamespot takes bribes in thier game ratings so thier never accurate, even for console games. They are also major fanboys for certain companies and always rate those particular companies higher.
Also EQ2's graphics blow, the modelers only had 1 day to make a 4k poly model, texture, rig, and pose it or they would get fired. That doesnt exactly leave enough time to do the models well. So what it ended up with are high inaccuretly placed polies with single tonal characters despite the typical animal/human has atleast 5 different skin tones. Not to mention the world is pretty empty and spaced out. Very small amount of trees and meshes most areas are huge grass/dirt lands. When you compare EQ2 to the graphical quality of Hero's Journey and rank Hero's journey a 10, then EQ2 would be an 8.
I've heard people say that too. But I've also heard people say the EQ2 graphics look better. One of my friends at work quit playing WoW when he came over to see EQ2. And he's still playing. I think this debate could go on forever.
Probably the only way to settle it would be to setup some measurements and see how each one meets them. But then people would disagree on those too, so whatever.
I'm no graphics know it all, but it just seems to me that EQ2 uses a lot more of the features I bought my high end video card for. Have you checked the different settings in EQ2's video options? There's tons. And yes, WoW looks good. But I like those added video features in EQ2, like the shadows, the reflective surfaces, and stuff. It's just cool technology. The reason I bought my new SLI setup.
Probably the only way to settle it would be to setup some measurements and see how each one meets them. But then people would disagree on those too, so whatever.
I'm no graphics know it all, but it just seems to me that EQ2 uses a lot more of the features I bought my high end video card for. Have you checked the different settings in EQ2's video options? There's tons. And yes, WoW looks good. But I like those added video features in EQ2, like the shadows, the reflective surfaces, and stuff. It's just cool technology. The reason I bought my new SLI setup.
I too think that from a purely technical point of view EQ2's graphics are better than WoW's, but WoW's graphical "feel" and style is a lot better than EQ2's IMHO. That's why I believe, to the "inexperienced" at least, WoW will often be more impressive than EQ2.
The difference on the features is caused when each of these games entered development. WoW was in development for 6 years. EQ2 was in development for 2 years, so the graphics they were set for and the options they had available were different. The new games coming in 2007 have something called normal mapping attached to them so they can make a low-res model looks like an extremely high res model.
That being said, in WoW towards the end of its development had like 200 artists working on it; while EQ2 only had about 70 artists and had a lower development time. It should be obvious with the lack of a development team and time why the graphics ended up not taking full advantage of the technology.
YA THINK THESE MAKE SENSE
I personally read GameSpot and i found their reviews to be mostly accurate and objective ones. The Reviewer does has his share of opinion (of course) but he does tries (and ususally do a good job at) being objective and evaluating the game in the various factors.
What you must consider, though, and that is why EVE get 6.6 for example, is that this game are valuated at RELEASE and then never re-evaluated again.
So, EVE, at release, was missing a loads of the features it has now, it was unstable, technically full of bugs and so on... like many other mmorpgs before it (that is also why AO is rated so low, same reason, it was practically unplayable when it got released).
DaoC, EQ2 and WoW all got relativly painless launches in which A) the servers didn't crashed every 2 seconds (for DAoC) or
there was a quite load of content from the get-go and the game had few bugs and the feeling of "finished product" instead of "paid-beta" (WoW and EQ2).
The reviews of older games are not anymore accurate. There has been lots of time for the game to develop in the meanwhile and while this problem is ususally fixed by reviewing the expansions (that is an occasion to also see what progress the game as a whole did), in the case of EVE their expansion was never released as a commercial product, so it never got a second review.
"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"
the problem is a mmorpg is continually changing and requires more time than simply first impressions.
WoW I don't think deserves that high a score, in terms of popularity and how much time they've spent creating every part of the world it deserves a 9.0 but not anything else asuch.
Everquest 2 I can agree with.
Saga of Ryzom, I played and the first impressions put me off.
Anarchy Online- played wasn't too impressed.
DaOC, decent game wasn't as good as the game I was playing at the time but is it decent.
AC2- my impressions of this game were brilliant but from what I can gather 1-20 is good and the rest is just poorly structured. This could have had a lot more subscribers if it had got things right. So a rating of 8 is probably just.
FF11, not played but it is the 2nd most popular game outside of Asia behind WoW.
Of the big multi-platform sites, I've found Gamespy (now part of IGN) the best for reviewing MMORPGs. Even the reviewers who aren't fans of the genre put together great hands-on previews. Gamespy's previews of FFXI, WoW and EQII encouraged me to buy the games because they brought the worlds to life.
Hated the game as it turned out but it goes to show that the quality of review writing is perhaps more important for MMORPGs than it is for other genres.
Raymondo
I'm confused. Your saying that with the lack of a large development team and time is implying your talking about EQ2 here given your numbers on years in development and staff. But anyone who's played both games knows EQ2 takes advantage of tons more visual technologies than WoW.
Have you seen what the environment looks like when it rains in EQ2? It's awesome. Or the oceans? Or the armor on the models? Or the facial expressions? And the spell effects, geez those are magnificent. Not to mention the shadowing in the game. And the flora actaully moves when you run by it. And then there's the specular lighting in the game. When I turn that on in the settings it's like night and day.
For a technology enthusiast that's why I love EQ2 so much. The game itself is awesome, but then it's got all these added toys to play with on top of the fun game. So I don't care how much time or how many artists were on the team. They added more technology into the game. And a lot of people are into that awesome new hardware that comes out. Go Nvidia!!!
I think that's another thing some of you guys are overlooking. Look at the dates Gamespot reviewed these games on. They are OLD OLD reviews. They haven't updated their scoring based on TODAY's version of the games including all the patches and development some of these titles have gone through.
I'm sure these ratings would change if Gamespot actually did a current review of the game based on how they are now. For instance, EVE would go up drastically and SWG would drop.
See what I mean?
In my opinion Gamespot is a bit goofy and harsh in a lot of their reviews, yet very lenient for others. Also, as has been stated several times before, it's about opinion. They couldn't stop ranting about BF2 so I decided to pick it up, I didn't really end up liking it (although mastering bombing in a jet ranks right up there with the awesome), but I guess everyone liked that game, I like CS:S more, I got straight up addicted to that.