In terms of the shown bits, the graphics do look dated and it's unfortunate because on today's engine there's much more that could be done on environment, effects and the overall detail/texturing of the world that seems to be where the game seems more cut comparing to other recent titles around / in-dev.
Honestly, I think that what it boils down to here is priorities. If graphics are a deal-breaker for you then MMOs are probably not for you. That's not commentary on Pantheon, but on the whole.
I'm curious why the graphics in pantheon look as dated as they do.
I hate to say it but you probably aren't the demographic for this game.
And hear me out ...
While I'm a huge proponent for good art design (and then graphics thereafter) one has to understand that this game is an indy game and an indy game on a tighter budget.
Regardless of how Ashes of Creation looks in their presentation not only do they have a different art design but it is a much higher budgeted game.
So anyone who is interested in Pantheon is probably going to play it already knowing that it's never going to have "amazing graphics". They play it more because it hearkens back to older games.
Would they like cutting edge graphics? Well, all things considered "looking good" is great. But This is not a $30 million game which Ashes of Creation will require according to their people.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
People are acting like what we see in Pantheon today is somehow a reflection of what the game will be like at launch. What we saw in the last stream didn't even look like the stream from 4 months prior. What we saw in December looked nothing like what we saw 6 months before that.
Just as a reminder, let's consider that earliest development looked like this:
Now it looks like this:
By launch, you can assume it will be more than acceptable to all but the most snobby graphics whores.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Look at Mass Effect Andromeda, or many other alpha games.
For ME:A, alpha looked actually 100 times better than the crap release
Then look at many other alpha games. Another example is Witcher 3.
While Witcher 3 still looked pretty good at release...
alpha looked so much better.
Its just a way for them to sell you the game with amazing graphics then bait and switch at release with nerfed graphics. Alpha graphics don't mean anything.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
Even though I'm not interested in this game, I am saavy enough to recognize that the customer-base it is being marketed to will be just fine with what the current graphics look like. The fact that the majority of the MMO custom based won't like said graphics does not really matter because the majority of the MMO customer will never have any interest in Pantheon regardless.
Untrue, several friends and myself have been waiting for an oldschool throwback to our 1999 EQ1 days. Pantheon is marketed directly at us. We like everything about the game's core systems. We don't even mind the dated combat. But none of us can stand the graphics, so your statement is false.
You just compared a screenshot generator that was used to take your money to an actual MMORPG.
Other than that, yeah... You have to consider a few things. I'm sure the Pantheon team is using metrics to determine the desired scalability of graphical settings to accommodate a wide range of systems. This is something AoC won't have to do, because by the time it launches we'll all be using multi dimensional quantum computers. I'm kidding of course... but you're mistaken if you think that's what the game will look like.
As for Unity being weak... that's the dumbest shit I have heard so far today - though it's still pretty early. There aren't many noticeable differences between Unity and Unreal when it comes to graphical fidelity. Who ever told you so lied.
Are you serious? There is not AoC game yet, that's a pre-rendered demo made with Unreal assets. When we will see actual in-game footage of AoC we can make comparisons with the two games, but AoC has nothing to show have they? Pantheon is in Pre-Alpha, AoC is still on the drawing board, big difference.
The above videos had considerably lower graphical fidelity than the on in the OP. Also, the animations and effects looked stiff and generic.
Overall, other than the movement of the cloaks and some higher res textures and higher quality lighting effects, it was on par with Pantheon. You can guarantee they were also running it on a beast rig, and they still had poor frames.
I don't know why anybody bothers to post anything remotely critical here. The Pantheon backers are like cultists lol
It's a discussion forum, I don't really believe anyone has done anything but "discuss" and bring up points.
So if someone posts something, whether it's positive or negative it's ok to have opposing viewpoints as long as they've given those viewpoints clearly.
Sounds to me you just want to have a bitch session where someone posts something negative and then everyone just piles on.
If you don't like what someone says you can debate their point.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I don't know why anybody bothers to post anything remotely critical here. The Pantheon backers are like cultists lol
You honestly think the OP has even an ounce of legitimate complaint? LOL. k. When Ashes is a game that actually exists, then people can talk about comparisons.
The truth is better graphics = less rigs that can run it and lower performance across the board. But Ashes is going to have 'background coding' to take care of all that so hundreds of players can be on the screen at once with high fidelity and terrain exploding. They're going to be able to do this without any issues of server performance because... reasons.
When it's an actual game streaming like Pantheon is doing, then let's compare. And it could very well be better. Heck there are games out now that look better than Pantheon already. ESO is probably the best example I can think of, but those interested in Pantheon aren't interested in that much. As long as it doesn't look like EQ graphics (which is doesn't,) I think most into the game will be alright with it. That has absolutely nothing to do with being a 'cultist' or following blind loyalty. It's about priorities.
At this moment there's a massive chance that those backing Pantheon will actually have a game vs. the Ashes backers. That's a fact.
Well one is a game with actual features and the other is a concept to pitch for more funding?
Also Pantheon uses Unity and Ashes uses Unreal. So there's that.
Neither one is a game yet. Both have system features under development. Comparing development projects on this level, especially at different stages in their life cycle is silly.
No. Pantheon is a game. It's in Pre-Alpha in heavy development. It's a game that has features in place and itemizations and abilities being currently tested. It's been featured and discussed about at great length in livestreams and blogs. A streamer has actually gotten to 'play it' with others live. Not a recorded demo of walking around an environment.
Are you serious? There is not AoC game yet, that's a pre-rendered demo made with Unreal assets. When we will see actual in-game footage of AoC we can make comparisons with the two games, but AoC has nothing to show have they? Pantheon is in Pre-Alpha, AoC is still on the drawing board, big difference.
Actually AoC has been in development for a bit now, the kickstarter was for additional funding. They have been developing prior to this on Steven's bank roll and a private investor. So yes, both games are in pre-alpha.
Are you serious? There is not AoC game yet, that's a pre-rendered demo made with Unreal assets. When we will see actual in-game footage of AoC we can make comparisons with the two games, but AoC has nothing to show have they? Pantheon is in Pre-Alpha, AoC is still on the drawing board, big difference.
Actually AoC has been in development for a bit now, the kickstarter was for additional funding. They have been developing prior to this on Steven's bank roll and a private investor. So yes, both games are in pre-alpha.
It's been in development for about 18 months and Ashes of Creation is not a game yet. It's a concept.
Are you serious? There is not AoC game yet, that's a pre-rendered demo made with Unreal assets. When we will see actual in-game footage of AoC we can make comparisons with the two games, but AoC has nothing to show have they? Pantheon is in Pre-Alpha, AoC is still on the drawing board, big difference.
Actually AoC has been in development for a bit now, the kickstarter was for additional funding. They have been developing prior to this on Steven's bank roll and a private investor. So yes, both games are in pre-alpha.
It's been in development for about 18 months and Ashes of Creation is not a game yet. It's a concept.
What is the qualifier that determines one from the other that you're applying here?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I've been trying to get a few old EQ era
friends excited about pantheon, and all of them have said no. It looks
too dated, and they can't play a game with those graphics.
[/quote]
The graphics are much better than even modern day eq. Comparing it to old era eq is just trolling.
Are you serious? There is not AoC game yet, that's a pre-rendered demo made with Unreal assets. When we will see actual in-game footage of AoC we can make comparisons with the two games, but AoC has nothing to show have they? Pantheon is in Pre-Alpha, AoC is still on the drawing board, big difference.
Actually AoC has been in development for a bit now, the kickstarter was for additional funding. They have been developing prior to this on Steven's bank roll and a private investor. So yes, both games are in pre-alpha.
It's been in development for about 18 months and Ashes of Creation is not a game yet. It's a concept.
What is the qualifier that determines one from the other that you're applying here?
If you are running around and there's no actual game features/design elements implemented, it's not a game. There's no objective. No goal to obtain.
GAME (noun) "a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck."
Does Ashes have rules that are decided by skill, strength, or luck? No.
Does Pantheon have rules that are decided by skill, strength or luck? Yes.
Are you serious? There is not AoC game yet, that's a pre-rendered demo made with Unreal assets. When we will see actual in-game footage of AoC we can make comparisons with the two games, but AoC has nothing to show have they? Pantheon is in Pre-Alpha, AoC is still on the drawing board, big difference.
Actually AoC has been in development for a bit now, the kickstarter was for additional funding. They have been developing prior to this on Steven's bank roll and a private investor. So yes, both games are in pre-alpha.
If that's the case they have very little to show then, not a good sign. The videos you posted aren't actually game-play but Tech Demos which is what Unreal 4 is really good at. Just browse Youtube a bit for "Unreal 4 Design Scene" and you will understand how easy is to produce something similar to what AoC did in just few hours. I am sure AoC devs spent a little more than few hours to make those videos but I am pretty sure there is no actual game as yet. In fact I recognize some of the Unreal 4 Stock assets in the AoC footage which is not a good sign either.
I give AoC the benefit of the doubt of course but comparing a game in actual full development with a Tech Demo is non sense.
I don't know why anybody bothers to post anything remotely critical here. The Pantheon backers are like cultists lol
It's a discussion forum, I don't really believe anyone has done anything but "discuss" and bring up points.
So if someone posts something, whether it's positive or negative it's ok to have opposing viewpoints as long as they've given those viewpoints clearly.
Sounds to me you just want to have a bitch session where someone posts something negative and then everyone just piles on.
If you don't like what someone says you can debate their point.
I understand that this is a discussion forum, but why do the Pantheon backers reply with "This isn't the game for you" when presented with a dissenting opinion? That's not discussion, and it doesn't make a point for either side of the debate. Neither does it add anything to the ongoing discussion. It is simply trying to shout down the opposition. I agree with your point about opposing viewpoints, @Sorvath. I'll add that this forum doesn't really grasp the concept of "discussion" at times.
To those who are telling people to move on or laughing at them or simply posting your favorite /facepalm image. What if the problem you are shouting down some issue become a problem in the future? How is that bringing any valuable content to the forum?
I will agree with @Recore's post about the game play being drab and potentially problematic, as soon as I can scroll back and find the post.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Comments
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
And hear me out ...
While I'm a huge proponent for good art design (and then graphics thereafter) one has to understand that this game is an indy game and an indy game on a tighter budget.
Regardless of how Ashes of Creation looks in their presentation not only do they have a different art design but it is a much higher budgeted game.
So anyone who is interested in Pantheon is probably going to play it already knowing that it's never going to have "amazing graphics". They play it more because it hearkens back to older games.
Would they like cutting edge graphics? Well, all things considered "looking good" is great. But This is not a $30 million game which Ashes of Creation will require according to their people.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Just as a reminder, let's consider that earliest development looked like this:
Now it looks like this:
By launch, you can assume it will be more than acceptable to all but the most snobby graphics whores.
Not that I've ever done so.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Look at Mass Effect Andromeda, or many other alpha games.
For ME:A, alpha looked actually 100 times better than the crap release
Then look at many other alpha games. Another example is Witcher 3.
While Witcher 3 still looked pretty good at release...
alpha looked so much better.
Its just a way for them to sell you the game with amazing graphics then bait and switch at release with nerfed graphics. Alpha graphics don't mean anything.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Both games are in pre-alpha
There is not AoC game yet, that's a pre-rendered demo made with Unreal assets.
When we will see actual in-game footage of AoC we can make comparisons with the two games, but AoC has nothing to show have they?
Pantheon is in Pre-Alpha, AoC is still on the drawing board, big difference.
Overall, other than the movement of the cloaks and some higher res textures and higher quality lighting effects, it was on par with Pantheon. You can guarantee they were also running it on a beast rig, and they still had poor frames.
Also Pantheon uses Unity and Ashes uses Unreal. So there's that.
So if someone posts something, whether it's positive or negative it's ok to have opposing viewpoints as long as they've given those viewpoints clearly.
Sounds to me you just want to have a bitch session where someone posts something negative and then everyone just piles on.
If you don't like what someone says you can debate their point.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
You honestly think the OP has even an ounce of legitimate complaint? LOL. k. When Ashes is a game that actually exists, then people can talk about comparisons.
The truth is better graphics = less rigs that can run it and lower performance across the board. But Ashes is going to have 'background coding' to take care of all that so hundreds of players can be on the screen at once with high fidelity and terrain exploding. They're going to be able to do this without any issues of server performance because... reasons.
When it's an actual game streaming like Pantheon is doing, then let's compare.
And it could very well be better. Heck there are games out now that look better than Pantheon already. ESO is probably the best example I can think of, but those interested in Pantheon aren't interested in that much. As long as it doesn't look like EQ graphics (which is doesn't,) I think most into the game will be alright with it. That has absolutely nothing to do with being a 'cultist' or following blind loyalty. It's about priorities.
At this moment there's a massive chance that those backing Pantheon will actually have a game vs. the Ashes backers. That's a fact.
So one is a game. The other is not. yet.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The graphics are much better than even modern day eq. Comparing it to old era eq is just trolling.
GAME (noun)
"a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck."
Does Ashes have rules that are decided by skill, strength, or luck? No.
Does Pantheon have rules that are decided by skill, strength or luck? Yes.
The videos you posted aren't actually game-play but Tech Demos which is what Unreal 4 is really good at.
Just browse Youtube a bit for "Unreal 4 Design Scene" and you will understand how easy is to produce something similar to what AoC did in just few hours.
I am sure AoC devs spent a little more than few hours to make those videos but I am pretty sure there is no actual game as yet.
In fact I recognize some of the Unreal 4 Stock assets in the AoC footage which is not a good sign either.
I give AoC the benefit of the doubt of course but comparing a game in actual full development with a Tech Demo is non sense.
To those who are telling people to move on or laughing at them or simply posting your favorite /facepalm image. What if the problem you are shouting down some issue become a problem in the future? How is that bringing any valuable content to the forum?
I will agree with @Recore's post about the game play being drab and potentially problematic, as soon as I can scroll back and find the post.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.