Is World of Warcraft prove that non-realistic graphics are better?

TheScavenger

WoW came out years ago, and sure its had some graphics updates.

However, look at games with realistic graphics. Vanguard Saga of Heroes, Everquest 2 and many others. They look damn ugly, but at release they did look good. Their graphics however did not stand the test of time. Looking back at them, they look terrible. Vanguard came out after WoW and looking at screenshots, it just looks terrible now. Everquest 2 is even worse, and while it came out same time as WoW...it looks a lot more outdated.

I am not talking how GOOD it looks. That is persons opinion. However, realistic MMOs for most part look outdated MUCH quicker than an art style like WoW. WoW many years later still looks beautiful, and looking back at vanilla screenshots still looks great. It does not look outdated.

WoW isn't the only example. Ultima Online, 2d Runescape and Tibia...while yes 2d games. Still look very nice to look at. 2d in general lasts much longer in how good they look, compared to 3d games.

The only exception to this, is any MMO or game on the CryEngine. Look at Crysis 1, and Star Citizen. While Star Citizen is in alpha, it looks absolutely gorgeous. Now look at Crysis 1 (the first one, not the lame console ports released after). Crysis 1 is ancient. Yet I launch it sometimes on steam and...decades later...STILL looks beautiful. A rare example of a realistic graphics/artstyle that looks beautiful years later. CryEngine based games in general looks great even decades/many years later.

However, for most part. 2d or cartoony 3d graphics last far longer in how dated or not they look, compared to a lot of 3d art styles. Just looking at Vanguard and I think how could I ever thought it looked good, and same with EQ2. To make matters worse, EQ2 doesn't just look uglier, but runs worse than WoW and it came out at same time.

Is that prove that 2d and cartoony graphics are actually BETTER economically for developers than aiming for realistic graphics? With the exception if they use CryEngine.

waynejr2

To me, the closer they try to make it look real the more glaring the fake aspects become.

Volgore

I wouldn't say "better", but most probably easier to maintain -but then on the other hand, Blizzard has the money and manpower to constantly improve their engine and graphics. Which other company has? Most of them barely get frequent content out the door.
You say that many years later WoW graphics still look beautiful -but that is only because of their constant upgrades.
For sure those 2004 remnants don't look beautiful anymore, as we can see with some of the remaining 256x256 textures and models that are still in the game. And then Legion graphics aren't old.
My point is, we can't really compare WoW graphics to another game's graphics, because Blizzard raised the bar with every xpack while some other games barely have two content patches a year.

I'm afraid Wildstar won't get old enough to see how well cartoonish/stylish graphics possibly age, perhaps Crowfall will?

I agree that most of the games that looked stunning at release didn't age well.
EQ2's graphics shocked me at release, but are now the main reason why i can't go back to the game anymore. When i played, there was a single guy tinkering with the engine and he had absolutely no idea what he was doing!
AoC is another victim of it's graphics and while still having beautiful environments, to an extend also Lotro is. Rift's visuals were an improvement over WoW at release, today i find them horribly outdated.

So i guess it's all a matter of maintaining your graphics and that is one thing many studios didn't do or couldn't afford to do, while Blizzard could.

H0urg1ass

The cartoony graphics work best overall for several reasons:

1)  Lowest Common Denominator.  If you want the most people to play your game, then you have to have the most people who are capable of playing your game.  That means you need the potato with RAM stuck in it to play as well as the $5,000 monster with SLI Titan X cards.

Catering to the mid-upper range of machinery means you're voluntarily cutting customers from your base.

2)  Easier to maintain.  If you're going for photorealism, the problem is that the goal posts move every couple of years.  Age of Conan was mind blowing when it released, but now it's just average.  Play it alongside BDO or Witcher 3 and you'll wonder yourself why you ever thought AoC looked great.

But if you go cartoony, then that's a lasting design choice.  You may change how many polygons you use at some point, or update a few shadows or AA every once in a while, but you own the goal posts and they don't move when the technology moves. 

3)  Consumer costs.  WoW graphics can be played on just about anything which means most consumers don't have to upgrade their machines.  In fact, I have a friend who is still using the same machine he played WoW on in 2005 without any changes.

When I started playing AoC, I had to buy a new computer that month because it couldn't run those sweet realistic graphics.  Not very many people can afford to run out and swap their entire hardware set for one game, so going photorealistic means the customer only has to buy your game, not a new computer to go with it.  Thereby increasing the potential customer base.

Now, does any of this mean they are better?  Objectively yes, but not subjectively.  Personally, I'm not in the lowest common denominator crowd.  I can afford to upgrade when games move the goalposts, and I keep on top of the technology.  So for me, I prefer as photorealistic as I can find.  WoW is god awful ugly to me, and I don't play it for primarily that reason.

gervaise1

A cartoon suggests simple graphic (that is the common definition after all). There was nothing simple about Blizzard's graphics.

If you look back you will find that the initial graphics created for WoW were extremely detailed - forget the colours that was a style choice. These graphics were then reworked employing what Blizzard described as a "big pixel" approach.

From memory for each scene pixels of the "same" colour were merged into a single blob of colour. This process reduced the number of colours used at anyone time (akin to what Cyan did with Myst), it reduced the detail and also the amount of information being processed.

One result being the  game ran on low end systems.

I can remember the Mythic CS person responding to a question about why DAoC graphics were not as good as WoW's. Her response was pretty emphatic something like "We've got like 70 people in total whereas Blizzard's art department has about 200".

By definition a cartoon is a simple graphic. There was nothing simple about Blizzard's graphics

Vrika

There is no better option. The games need to be different from each other to offer variety, and attract people with different tastes.

Cartoony graphics are good, anime style graphic is good, realistic graphics are good too. The last thing we as gamers should hope for is for publishers to decide one style is best and start making every game in that style.

Sovrath

I wouldn't say "better" I would say they age better.

I generally don't like "cartoony" or stylized graphics. Or I would say that i prefer being more realistic as opposed to looking "drawn".

ann4

waynejr2 said:

To me, the closer they try to make it look real the more glaring the fake aspects become.

Ditto.

Speaking as a player from vanilla I feel that the graphics are somewhat of the charm of the game. Although, I do understand for many they are very much like Marmite. Love or hate, they are what they are.'

In my eyes, the graphical style is very much the Blizzard way, they have been doing it for years.

Volgore said:

I'm afraid Wildstar won't get old enough to see how well cartoonish/stylish graphics possibly age, perhaps Crowfall will?

Heck, are people still playing Wildstar?

SEANMCAD

Is McDonalds proof that the best way to eat beef is by a Big Mac?

cribett

Give me a good isometric mmorpg with great gameplay any day.

simsalabim77

SEANMCAD said:

Is McDonalds proof that the best way to eat beef is by a Big Mac?

Ah, a fast food analogy involving MMORPG's. My favorite. 

SEANMCAD

simsalabim77 said:

SEANMCAD said:

Is McDonalds proof that the best way to eat beef is by a Big Mac?

Ah, a fast food analogy involving MMORPG's. My favorite. 

it fits very nicely for most 'WOW' arguements 

Octagon7711

Of course you have to take everything that interests the gamer into consideration.  It's usually a trade off of graphics, combat, pve, pvp, crafting, questing, and a few other things that keep a game popular.  Getting the right mix at the right time is crucial and I think that's what allows them to endure. 

mikuniman

It's a matter of preference, Age of Conan still looks amazing to me despite it's age. WoW was a cartoon when I played it 2k4 it's still a cartoon today. Clay looking painted on armor, hands that look like clubs or inside a horses neck hanging on to the reins, and that hunk of cheese while eating always makes me laugh, it is what it is a 12 count crayola. Doe eyed disney does nothing for me. I've always wished for a more realistic WoW.

 I love realistic graphics and smooth combat animation, attention to detail just enhances my immersion. BDO scenery from the harpy hills blows me away makes me stop what I'm doing. It's amazing how far they've come from then I'm looking forward to when mmo graphics catch up to an rpg (Tomb Raider's Witcher ect.) or the better, I would build a screaming machine for that.

Kaneth

Stylized graphics are most definitely the way to go since they tend to maintain their look for longer periods of time. Granted, if WoW never received any graphic updates, the game would far more dated than it even does now, so they've done some updates. Still though, in terms of keeping to the spirit of the original look, while keeping it looking good, WoW has done an amazing job.

SEANMCAD

Kaneth said:

Stylized graphics are most definitely the way to go since they tend to maintain their look for longer periods of time.....

'sylized graphics' maintain their look for longer periods of time then realistic graphics.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
do we understand the meaning of 'stylized' when it comes into context of periods of time?

H0urg1ass

SEANMCAD said:

Kaneth said:

Stylized graphics are most definitely the way to go since they tend to maintain their look for longer periods of time.....

'sylized graphics' maintain their look for longer periods of time then realistic graphics.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
do we understand the meaning of 'stylized' when it comes into context of periods of time?

Yes, Borderlands will still look good ten years from now because it's a highly stylized, comic book'ish, cartoon style.  It's meant to look one specific way.  One specific... style, if you will.  The graphics will never degrade or get old because those graphics are locked into a specific look which the game was designed around.

Theocritus

Not at all....THe proof of that is there are a couple games that have identical graphics to WoW and probably have less than 50 players.....To me the graphics are 0% of the reason for WoWs success.

Loke666

Comic like graphics lasts longer but I don't think graphics is the reason Wow lasted so long.

Besides how the game look after 7 or more years it is just different, not better.

Thebeasttt

The continued success of WoW and LoL is encouraging in some ways. It shows that many gamers actually value design over graphics. FFXIV has amazing graphics but it's an obvious Wow clone, yet mechanically worse in nearly every aspect.

That game doesn't deserve to succeed at all but the fact it's still doing much worse than WoW is a ray of hope for the gamers of tomorrow.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Vorthanion

Does anyone ever compute how many people are turned off by cartoon or stylized graphics in the first place, let alone how well they age?  I played WoW for the gameplay while despising the graphics and as soon as other better options arrived, I dumped it like yesterday's dinner.  LoTRO has aged well and it's fairly realistic as did Vanguard's graphic style.  It's as much about the design as it is the technology behind it that makes it last.  The greater the detail, the larger number of assets and strength of the animations are what I think make a game age well.

xyzercrime

SEANMCAD said:

simsalabim77 said:

SEANMCAD said:

Is McDonalds proof that the best way to eat beef is by a Big Mac?

Ah, a fast food analogy involving MMORPG's. My favorite. 

it fits very nicely for most 'WOW' arguements 

Which you can find more often in scavenger's threads.

FlyByKnight

There is no better. It's preference.

The only problem is that when you deal with photorealism, as render engines get better the older games look more silly in hindsight. 

Stylized works are judged more on art and design while with photorealistic works, technology carries way more weight.

Stylized work has the appearance of lasting longer because it comes under less scrunity. It's not expected to be a certain way.

Ridelynn

I don't know if Blizzard has much to do with if Stylized are "Better" than Photorealism. That's like comparing Ansel Adams to Van Goht - both are good, but the fact that they are good isn't so much just because they chose their respective mediums - it's because of what they were able to do with the tools they chose.

I think what Blizzard has shown is that attention to detail does win out. They have their own style, they are religiously adherent to it in everything they do in their game. The graphics and animations are full of little details, which help to emphasize whatever the theme of the area is they are trying to convey. And they are constantly pushing to improve it, using a very conservative and iterative process.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.