Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What's The Minimum Graphics You'll Deal With In An MMO?
Devour
Member Posts: 902
So, yes, the game is close to perfect in terms of gameplay for you. Not perfect, but no thing ever is. But, what's the minimum graphics you'd deal with to play this game?
Very High Quality - Crysis etc
High Quality - Age of Conan etc
Medium Quality - The Elder Scrolls : Oblivion etc
Low Quality - Everquest 2 on low settings etc
Very Low Quality - Everquest etc
See below for preferred choice of graphics type.
Comments
Now, what is your preferred graphics style in an MMO?
Photo-Realistic - Crysis etc.
Semi-Realistic - Vanguard, EQ2, etc
Western Stylized - WoW, WAR, etc
Anime - Mabinogi etc.
Isometric View - Ultima Online etc.
You forgot "2D Ultima-like games". I voted "below the ones listed", because seriously, it doesn't matter.
And since when "Oblivion on max" is considered "medium"?
I hate WoW because it made my plush hamster kill himself, created twin clones of Hitler, punched Superboy Prime in reality, stared my dog down, spoiled my grandmother, assimilated me into the Borg, then made me into a real boy, just to make me a woman again.
For a new MMO at least medium to high, the graphics must keep up with the times.
It doesnt has to be Age of Conan Style, but a Lotro state is obligatory.
Oblivion on max still has pretty crappy textures etc.
EDIT: Also, hence why I reserved the second post, it's for styles of graphics, not graphics quality. =p A high quality isometric game would be Kingdom Reborn, for example.
AoC with DX10 is an awesome experience. It's a different game from the DX9 client. That being said I went with lower than listed simply because in the end GFX aren't that important to me. If its a good game I'll play it with stick figures if I have to. (Probably worth noting that I'm an old MUD player so I'm used to _no_ gfx).
The graphics thing is a little misleading when you give precise examples. I desire medium or higher art quality, but even very low art technology would be acceptable to me.
Honestly maybe even that's stretching things. I'd try a Dwarf Fortress MMO, where the gameplay is revamped so that everyone's making dwarf fortresses in the same world and interacting with each other in meaningful ways. And DF's art is both low-tech and low quality :P
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Medium to high would be my limit of how low I will play a MMORPG.
Playing Fallen Earth on Very High settings, yet it isn't played on a today's high end system but still look pretty great to me.
Oh noessssss, Reklaw again with some new screenshots of his currrent favorite MMORPG
Click screenies to enlarge.
To ad, I personaly don't like many of the A-Title bright colour theme, they take away immersion for me, games like WoW, LotrO, Age of Conan, Aion, Tera Online, Allods Online which I can appreciate how they look, they simply not what I would want to look at when I play a MMORPG, certainly some gamers will have the same feeling towards a more reallistic colour theme like Fallen Earth. Thankfully we have all these different options available to us gamers.
But medium would be absolute the minimum I would consider else I rather not play a MMORPG if I need to go lower then medium settings. MMORPG are meant to be immersed and sorry when I look at how a MMORPG regardless which one looks at minimum graphic settings I would rather choose not to play it, been with games almost all my life so my eye's need something nice to look at, been there. done that, when graphics where not all that, but that doesn't have to be in this time and age, and no graphics aint all there is, for me it needs to be a 50/50 with gameplay.
Oh and OP the Photo Realistic poll kinda needs to go from the poll, there is NO mmorpg and not one upcoming MMORPG that even comes close to it, we will not see that type of quality in a MMORPG for atleast a few more years, and it's also Crysis again not a MMORPG, Would I like a MMORPG to look like that, sure, but then again I also don't, reason is I like my MMO filled with people and not about 2% of the MMORPG community. I wonder if even a high-end system build today would be able to play a MMORPG that would look like Crysis...personaly I don't think so....
This isn't a very good poll. You basically listed four games which are both graphically intensive memory hogs and stuck the original EQ at the very end, which has better looking graphics than "Everquest 2 on low settings" as the screenshot you chose is not truly EQ2 on low settings.
Where are the options for games like LoTRO, Warhammer, SW:ToR, STO and WoW -- games with moderately unrealistic, cartoony graphics which are designed as such with the intention to run on wider variety of computers?
This isn't a very good poll. You basically listed four games which are both graphically intensive memory hogs and stuck the original EQ at the very end, which has better looking graphics than "Everquest 2 on low settings" as the screenshot you chose is not truly EQ2 on low settings.
Where are the options for games like LoTRO, Warhammer, SW:ToR, STO and WoW -- games with moderately unrealistic, cartoony graphics which are designed as such with the intention to run on wider variety of computers?
you ask options for wow and war wich both are mentioned in there as a one shot for wow so duh?
i voted for photo realistic simply cause i want to evolve as a gamer and experience i dont wanna keep playing and looking for same stuff over and over and years and years again. if some player simply dont have money to buy sucha machines , better get a job and start saving then. theres always a options for those who are not intrested on high end graphics and just want a game that can run with their crappy machines so they can basicly log in there and chat .
lord of the rings online is all around good looking and have good athmosphere. since you mention that for an must option.
cheers
everquest, but in its current state...not like the one in the sc...like the stuff from underfoot
March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon
As long as the graphics are at least one step up from ASCII then I'm fine with it. Even then, I still managed to enjoy ASCII roguelikes so maybe I could even deal with that. Ideally it would have at least some basic tile support though.
I'll take deep and interesting gameplay over graphics any day! Graphics are nice, and I appreciate them as much as anyone, but not at the cost of shallow gameplay.
I'll still play Clan Lord occasionally. That say enough?
Check out the MUD I'm making!
Depends on the character point-of-view and immersion factor for me.
For example...I find first-person games to be much more immersive, allowing you to see more of the world and feeling much more like your character - i.e. everquest (before xpacs). If you have a zoom-out, top-down view, all you end up looking at is the ground and the bottom portion of buildings. What is the point in having nice graphics if that is all you look at? (i'm looking at you, WoW, Allods, etc)
Depends on the style and on the game. The better the gameplay the more I'll be forgiving with the graphics. Also if it's a realistic style I'm not as lenient as with games that go for some comic look.
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
Gameplay and graphics are kinda like a girls looks a personality to me. Id rather date a girl that is less attractive but has an amazing personality than is uber hot and is a stuck up bitch. The personality in turn makes you like them as well but you still need some kind of physical attraction as well as mental attraction for things to work out.
Lets say someone made a kick as mmo gameplay wise but it had the graphics of the NES. To be honest I don't think I could play it because there is no eye candy to help attract me to the game. The gameplay might grow on you and it may make you look at the graphics differently but for me a game needs both of these qualities. I'm willing to sacrifice some eye candy for gameplay, but the game still needs to be somewhat visually appealing.
I'm old, it's true and back when I started gaming I used to run the original "Adventure" game on a Dec Vax which we housed in a storage cupboard.
So graphics are not the be all and end all for me, having said that most of the frustration of text-based systems was having to work out which exact phrase was the right one for the job, I spent 3 weeks on a game called forgotten woods where you need to open a cave door by doing something to a rock. I kicked that rock, punched it, spat on it, sat on it, and as many variations on a theme as I could, I even began to try out a range of activities with that rock which would get you arrested in real life, but it took 3 weeks to work out I needed to "touch the rock" (as if all the other activities didn't involve touching the rotten rock!).
So give me a realistic language parser and I'd be happy to accept no graphics at all if the story was good enough... but without that games like WoW are fine for today's graphical offerings, you don't need top end graphics but something nice definitely improves the playing experience.
It is very hard to put one vague rating on graphics.
My minimum now a days is equal to EQ2.That engine/compression/texture quality looks good but is no where near what we can deliver.
What Eq2 does is use hi quality textures /shader's/lighting sparingly.The players armor/weapons are the main focus,after that it is hit and miss but still makes the game look good over all.VG is a notch better and what i prefer,but i also realize it is too demanding on the system.
The problem with EQ2 is it is CPU intensive,meaning we can't really play it on full as we SHOULD be able to with now days systems.However if a game uses the same standards as EQ2[witch they ALL should be able to match]but coded to utilize our GPU to it's fullest,we can have a great looking game.IMO there is NO excuse for not using the PhysX engine,it just makes for better yet graphics/animations without the performance loss.
F2P games are NOT acceptable,they are an insult,they should not be supported.The obvious reason is what i already mentioned ,the ySHOULD be able to match EQ2 easily.with better game engines,newer compression,better coding for the GPU,basically they should all be far more knowledgeable than when EQ2 was made.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Underfoot?
Minimum level for me? RuneScape (though the High Detail mode actually makes it look half decent... for a browser MMO).
I prefer semi-realistic graphics, though I like WAR's art style very much - everything from armor to buildings to the environment.
In your poll options, "quality" equals "photorealism".
Quality in style is completely ignored.
Hype train -> Reality
With today's machine, I think art direction is more important than realism.
Bioshock has nice design.
Borderlands has nice design, and a distinct style.
Ditto for WOW.
And I care more about the animation than just pure rendering.
Underfoot?
http://everquest.station.sony.com/expansions/underfoot/
Graphics are a little more updated than the screenshot you posted
March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon
yes the picture you see here isnt a statement of everquest or i wouldnt mention it lol
i saw the real deal and its very nice .
me i can live with everquest graphic quality !very often we end up with worsth graphic in eq2 because we got to lower setting in eq2 in eq1 you can raid at max
Do people in games with graphics like AOC lag real bad when they are having a large PVP battle? Those are the kind of graphics im hoping will work in our near future games of course. Not WOW or good old EQ1.
I can deal with a medium level of graphics or better. I would actually rather have worse graphics if it can allow for the huge battles devs have been shooting for lately that turn into a mess when they try for high end graphics as well in reference to PvP.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.