If it has the best gameplay in the world but the graphics are as bad as EQ 1, I would not even touch it. Yes, I'm superficial, and I don't care :P
I just want it to have atleast OK graphics. It is like if a woman had a good personality but was ugly as hell, i would never date her. But if she looked atleast ok and was enjoyable to talk to, then I'd date. but if she was a 10 out of 10, but annoying as hell, I could not date here either (though I would sleep with her).
Kind of a fine line for me i guess.
My god has horns.... nah, I don't think he is real either.
I think if developers spent less money worrying about how shiny the graphics were on a game and spent more on actually making the game better everyone would be happier. For example the graphics for WOW are fairly simple and cartoony and yet it has a huge number of subs. There are plenty of people on this forum that play older MMO's that have out dated graphics and don't seem to care. No game that has come out since WOW with fancy graphics has come close to the number of subs that WOW has. From this I conclude that graphics don't matter as much as the developers seem to think they do, at least in mmo's.
To me the graphics have to be acceptable.
I couldnt' play a game that was antiquated lik UO or Everquest. There has to be some sort of engaging factor that makes me feel like I'm in an epic world. If I'm fighting to accept that this polygonal character in front of me is my avatar in the world then no matter how great the gameplay is it's not going to work.
On top of that, people have to remember that we are built differently. I'm sure you know people who are very logical, good at math or science etc. But ask them to get on stage or in front of a group and ask them to improv a scene or be creative in any way and they can't. Yet there are people (myself included) who could walk up in front of a crowd and be completeluy comfortable "being creative" (whether or not I was successful you would have to judge ; )
I say this because some people are affected by visual stimuli differently than others. So when you say that "graphics don't matter' you might not be "seeing" them or be affected by them like another person might.
It's also probably that "deep gameplay" might not affect some people as they don't require that type of diversion and draw their enjoyment from other means.
I quite frankly don't think one is better than another, just that we are born different, have different abilities and just require different things.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Sovrath To me the graphics have to be acceptable.
I couldnt' play a game that was antiquated lik UO or Everquest. There has to be some sort of engaging factor that makes me feel like I'm in an epic world. If I'm fighting to accept that this polygonal character in front of me is my avatar in the world then no matter how great the gameplay is it's not going to work.
A line has to be drawn on how much. EQII has a extreme setting that is close to Oblivion with high res textures. But only the best computers can run it at a decent fps (and in cities, I doubt even by much). It also makes these games 8+GB in size (multiple DVD disk sized even). Not much if you have a terabyte of storage space, but those of us with even 2 Raptors, it's not getting smaller!
It's getting to be a situation of the haves and have nots. Those with 2008 quad proc rigs want everything including the kitchen sink; while those on older computers and even dialup, are asking for the game to even run.
Even with .dds these 2048x2048+ textures you guys want to WOW about, it's peaking the max of the older computers ability to process them (AGP has a limit in texture size alone, not including how many it can load into memory and deliver). The MMO/RPG market doesn't tend to buy the fancier computers, and games are showing it with gamers still playing on dialup (that can't be done with modern FPS games, like Crysis).
Technology is the limiting factor folks. Publishers can't alienate whole demographics, so a compromise has to be made and it starts at -- no Crysis graphics and settings. AGP is still being used (and if ATI has it way, it'll continue for 2 to 5 years more -- why I keep saying it'll be about 10 years before you can get HD quality graphics). Settle with 1024x1024 or less textures (BF2142 and F.E.A.R. quality) on important features, 512x512 on less important. If you push and push and push, the MMO market will get smaller and smaller and smaller, as no way 2048x2048 textures can be served to older computers and run with any decent fps. You're asking to shut down the market, not increase it.
I couldnt' play a game that was antiquated lik UO or Everquest. There has to be some sort of engaging factor that makes me feel like I'm in an epic world. If I'm fighting to accept that this polygonal character in front of me is my avatar in the world then no matter how great the gameplay is it's not going to work.
A line has to be drawn on how much. EQII has a extreme setting that is close to Oblivion with high res textures. But only the best computers can run it at a decent fps (and in cities, I doubt even by much). It also makes these games 8+GB in size (multiple DVD disk sized even). Not much if you have a terabyte of storage space, but those of us with even 2 Raptors, it's not getting smaller!
It's getting to be a situation of the haves and have nots. Those with 2008 quad proc rigs want everything including the kitchen sink; while those on older computers and even dialup, are asking for the game to even run.
Even with .dds these 2048x2048+ textures you guys want to WOW about, it's peaking the max of the older computers ability to process them (AGP has a limit in texture size alone, not including how many it can load into memory and deliver). The MMO/RPG market doesn't tend to buy the fancier computers, and games are showing it with gamers still playing on dialup (that can't be done with modern FPS games, like Crysis).
Technology is the limiting factor folks. Publishers can't alienate whole demographics, so a compromise has to be made and it starts at -- no Crysis graphics and settings. AGP is still being used (and if ATI has it way, it'll continue for 2 to 5 years more -- why I keep saying it'll be about 10 years before you can get HD quality graphics). Settle with 1024x1024 or less textures (BF2142 and F.E.A.R. quality) on important features, 512x512 on less important. If you push and push and push, the MMO market will get smaller and smaller and smaller, as no way 2048x2048 textures can be served to older computers and run with any decent fps. You're asking to shut down the market, not increase it.
Yes but EQII can be run at lower settings. those with higher settings can enjoy a more "spectacular" grapical capability. But eliminating this is not going to change much.
And quite frankly my machine can run EQII at the maximum but somewhat poorly in some areas. so I put it on the next one down and am find with it.
it's my thought that those who are complaining about "super graphics" might also be the people who won't ever upgrade their computer. Especially when I've seen people come to these forums to complain that they have a decent rig only it's not even close. It's so many years out of date as to be laughable.
Again, I don't have a super machine but ran many of conan's settings at high. Just tweaked here or there.
But keeping everything at the lvl of the original UO or original Lineage is not acceptable.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
What I demand is a detailed avatar with lots of options in the character customization. I dont care if a rock or a tree have 100 or 30k polygons, or if the latest science have been used to create the sky, but my avatar is what the game surround, what I see in the center of my screen for hundreds of hours. Its much more fun to enter the game if you actually like your character, how it looks and moves, if it feels like your own creation, than if you dont feel anything at all about it. You can use many tricks to make the game world good looking and atmospheric without super heavy graphic, but your characters appearance is usually the first (and some times the last) impression you get from the game and should be the last thing to be cheating with.
Originally posted by Sovrath it's my thought that those who are complaining about "super graphics" might also be the people who won't ever upgrade their computer. Especially when I've seen people come to these forums to complain that they have a decent rig only it's not even close. It's so many years out of date as to be laughable.
See what I mean by the have and have not mentality of this debate?
Why do you think Vista is a failure as an OS? It's not the technology. It's not the graphics. It's not even any bug.
It's because businesses (Microsoft's major income) won't update their computers to buy it.
Most computer users don't update their computer every 1 or 2 years. I'm a computer builder and I cobble this computer out of spare parts -- 90% 2003 parts (only the videocard and HDD are newer), as paying for first generation parts is really a waste of money. Heck, my tech relative who's been a network engineer/system builder for over 20 years, even his rig is only a PresHot/800mhz. Only folks buying the latest and greatest are those who also buy into the latest and greatest hype.
When ATI continues to make AGP cards [now up to the HD series even] (when everyone said AGP was dead), it can't stay on the shelves (despite many have to buy 600+watt PSUs to power the beasts). ATI didn't do it to be nice mind you, but they did it because of the AMD users that has to use AGP still. They weren't switching, and if they did, they would switch to Intel.
So we have a market standoff. Customers aren't upgrading. Vista is selling more downgraded licenses (Windows XP). ATI is still providing AGP. DX10 is underused and a more a novelty (could be due to all those AGP cards sold!). And DDR3 sits waiting forever to be loved.
You're looking at at least 5 years before you get what you want. More realistically (and from my standpoint of keeping old computers alive and kicking) 10 years.
Enjoy your Crysis. The rest will be happy at medium/high settings (and hoping games don't outstrip our HD/D capacity -- and one things for sure, I'm not trading these expensive Raptors for more space).
it's my thought that those who are complaining about "super graphics" might also be the people who won't ever upgrade their computer. Especially when I've seen people come to these forums to complain that they have a decent rig only it's not even close. It's so many years out of date as to be laughable.
See what I mean by the have and have not mentality of this debate?
Why do you think Vista is a failure as an OS? It's not the technology. It's not the graphics. It's not even any bug.
It's because businesses (Microsoft's major income) won't update their computers to buy it.
Most computer users don't update their computer every 1 or 2 years. I'm a computer builder and I cobble this computer out of spare parts -- 90% 2003 parts (only the videocard and HDD are newer), as paying for first generation parts is really a waste of money. Heck, my tech relative who's been a network engineer/system builder for over 20 years, even his rig is only a PresHot/800mhz. Only folks buying the latest and greatest are those who also buy into the latest and greatest hype.
When ATI continues to make AGP cards [now up to the HD series even] (when everyone said AGP was dead), it can't stay on the shelves (despite many have to buy 600+watt PSUs to power the beasts). ATI didn't do it to be nice mind you, but they did it because of the AMD users that has to use AGP still. They weren't switching, and if they did, they would switch to Intel.
So we have a market standoff. Customers aren't upgrading. Vista is selling more downgraded licenses (Windows XP). ATI is still providing AGP. DX10 is underused and a more a novelty (could be due to all those AGP cards sold!). And DDR3 sits waiting forever to be loved.
You're looking at at least 5 years before you get what you want. More realistically (and from my standpoint of keeping old computers alive and kicking) 10 years.
Enjoy your Crysis. The rest will be happy at medium/high settings (and hoping games don't outstrip our HD/D capacity -- and one things for sure, I'm not trading these expensive Raptors for more space).
I don't have Vista and have a moderately good machine. Sorry, sounds to me like you are just bitter. I also saved my money to put everything in it. That was my decision and I didn't purchase other things in order to do it.
Has nothing to do with have or have not but what you are willing to spend your money on.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I could rant about this all day, but to keep my post from getting annoying i'll just say gameplay is what's most important. It's a hard lesson a lot of companies have learned lately. Hopefully the age of the shiney yet crappy mmo is over and gameplay and community actually take the lead for most new games coming out in the future.
I don't have Vista and have a moderately good machine. Sorry, sounds to me like you are just bitter. I also saved my money to put everything in it. That was my decision and I didn't purchase other things in order to do it.
Has nothing to do with have or have not but what you are willing to spend your money on.
[/quote]
What's bitter is that you refuse to see the writing on the wall. No matter how the flashing signs flare, you're set in a mode that won't exist for y-e-a-r-s to come.
Get it through the fog: technology is your limiting factor. What works for you, WILL NOT WORK FOR THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS. I said it in very detail terms WHY. And I'll repeat it once more: AGP cards have a limit on texture sizes and bandwidth. You can't push high res textures through it without consequences in gameplay. Those high res textures are huge on disk space. Huge disk space becomes a problem not only putting the damn game on the HD, disk fragmentation (have you noticed AAA games using archives now to keep the 1001 files together on disk?? Do you think they just did that for show????). Then add the issue of page file increases (and if you increase the page file beyond your physical memory to compensate, your gaming is going to start crawling).
What looks simple to you, is not simple to deliver in reality -- at least now. Gameplay is the most important issue in game development, it comes first and foremost to graphics and audio. No gameplay, you wouldn't even need to worry about graphics, as there won't be a game to play.
Speaking for myself, no I don't care about graphics. Art direction and quality are far more important to me than graphics. Case in point: Ultima Online. A beautiful game, but the first time they tried to upgrade the game to 3D it was ugly. Even better case in point, World of Warcraft. WoW's graphics were dated even before its release in 2004 but you can hardly tell because the art direction is so beautiful.
However, I think developers do have to focus on graphics these days because the vast majority of gamers (and gaming media) are complete mouth-breathing graphic whores. And I mean that from the bottom of my heart. Blizzard gets away with it because they focus more on quality than any other developer I know, and they've earned that right in the industry over the years. Most developers can't risk not having the latest greatest graphics.
I myself dont put graphics too high on my list of things to look for in an mmo. There is a minimum that I will accept, however, that minimum isnt too high overall. There are plenty of games where I read posts about games where a bunch of people whine about graphics and when I look at the game I just kind of go HuH? looks good to me.
For me the most important element is do the graphics detract or add to the immersion element in playing a game. They dont have to be super duper great to add to the game and they dont have to be crap to detract from the game. The best example I can come up with is when EQ first came out my roomates girlfriend gave up trying to get him off the game and started playing the game herself. It was her first real computer game and within a week she was having dreams based on the game and what she was doing in it. Thats immersion . So in total its all about whether you can let your creative mind go and simply think as if you are in the game world and to stop trying to analyse the game world for flaws. Every game world we create will have flaws, but if you blur your mind to them and look past them one can get a heck of a lot more enjoyment out of a game.
I agree with the above. I'm not too bothered about graphics but I can be really picky about animations for example the jumping in some games like vanguard, EQ2 and lotro feels a bit floppy to me :P ( not a very good way to describe it but im sure u all know what im talking about)
i dont mind cartoon style graphic but bugged one yes wow is cartoon style and it works game maker should stick to cartoon style
hell even in books cartoon do have a lot of difference gotic cartoon ,horror cartoon etc
check guild waras itys very nice and its not a ressource hogg but the i heard it was design on laptop if its the case that would put a known limit that aoc designer forgot to check .hell this game would hav e been good in 2 years but now lol if your computer is the same age as wow forget it you ll hate this game if just for the ressource it take to run at minimum(crysis anyone)
For me its "stylization" over "realisation", It takes much for skill and talent to hand draw.paint textures and to create buidlings and worlds not found in the real world (and make it look good), then it does to take a photo of a wall and slap it on a a model thats been modeled on a wall out side your window.
The actual graphics take a backseat to both world design and something that just about every developer overlooks... *animation* I can't play Vanguard or EQ2, because the animations are *terrible* (like... "*I* can do better than that" terrible), while I can't stand WoW's Art Direction (I prefer the semi-realism of EQ2/Vanguard/Age of Conan), but the animations sell it. The characters' movements (in WoW and AoC both) are *believable*. Believeability for the situation that the characters are in goes a long, long way, whether it's an MMO, or Street Fighter II.
Well said. Its not the number of polygons you have but how you use them.
I don't have Vista and have a moderately good machine. Sorry, sounds to me like you are just bitter. I also saved my money to put everything in it. That was my decision and I didn't purchase other things in order to do it.
Has nothing to do with have or have not but what you are willing to spend your money on.
[/quote] What's bitter is that you refuse to see the writing on the wall. No matter how the flashing signs flare, you're set in a mode that won't exist for y-e-a-r-s to come. Get it through the fog: technology is your limiting factor. What works for you, WILL NOT WORK FOR THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS. I said it in very detail terms WHY. And I'll repeat it once more: AGP cards have a limit on texture sizes and bandwidth. You can't push high res textures through it without consequences in gameplay. Those high res textures are huge on disk space. Huge disk space becomes a problem not only putting the damn game on the HD, disk fragmentation (have you noticed AAA games using archives now to keep the 1001 files together on disk?? Do you think they just did that for show????). Then add the issue of page file increases (and if you increase the page file beyond your physical memory to compensate, your gaming is going to start crawling). What looks simple to you, is not simple to deliver in reality -- at least now. Gameplay is the most important issue in game development, it comes first and foremost to graphics and audio. No gameplay, you wouldn't even need to worry about graphics, as there won't be a game to play.
UnatcoII, you are making this more complex than it is.
All I'm saying is that graphics need to be able to capture the imagination of the player. At some point these things start looking dated depending upon the art design.
Look at WoW. In my opinion it doesn't need to really update anything because the art design is such that it is essentially timeless.
And as for the EQII example, you might remember that when it was first released it was very difficult to put it on the high setting let alone super high (or whatever it is called). Now things have moved a long a bit and with a few modifications on can run it very high pretty well.
And look at Lineage II. 4+ years old game and with the exception of a seam or two in the world I still state that due to its art design it has some of the best graphics in any game. I was admiring how the sunlight bounced off of my character to the point that it almost looked like a real thing.
As I stated before as long as the graphics are capable of capturing the imagination of the player and are capable of provided an epic feel then the game will be successful. but no, no one will be able to go back to the EQ graphics or early UO or Lineage (I) again.
Besides, it seems to me that the people in the game studio who are responsible for gameplay are different than the graphics people. And since gameplay is more about ideas I think the problems with games lie in the imaginations of those designers.
And quite frankly (and this is where I piss you off) I am not a socialist. I don't care about a game company having to make things so that everyone can take part. Shocking right? If a game company wants to make a game that runs on the top 1% of machines and they think they can actually make it successful, more power to them. It's their dime and their risk. If there are people who can play it and the game can work then fine. I'll just move on to something else.
I'm sorry I just think you fret too much.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Personally, graphics play a role to a certain point. I simply cannot digest a 3D game made in the 90s after having played so much Guild Wars. I feel I have less incentive to progress in-game if my character looks like a walking block of pixels.
With that being said, amazing graphics are nowhere near needed. I'm perfectly fine with Anarchy Online's graphics to be honest, which are dated to the point of an engine upgrade being on the way.
Originally posted by Thedrizzle
Those who say graphics don't matter and gameplay is everything are full of shit. Graphics matter equally as much as game play. If graphics don't matter then everyone should go back and play Ultima Online.
So those who are still playing UO are now full of shit because graphics don't matter to them (a sweeping statement might I add)?
Yes, roughly the 75k people still playing UO are those who are still holding onto past accolades hanging around the bank hope'n someone from back in the day might come back to chat with them, the mentally ill, those who go back to UO in disgust of all the current games hoping that they will get the same feleling they felt when they were first chased by a dreadlord, and the rest are people still on a dial-up.
Comments
If it has the best gameplay in the world but the graphics are as bad as EQ 1, I would not even touch it. Yes, I'm superficial, and I don't care :P
I just want it to have atleast OK graphics. It is like if a woman had a good personality but was ugly as hell, i would never date her. But if she looked atleast ok and was enjoyable to talk to, then I'd date. but if she was a 10 out of 10, but annoying as hell, I could not date here either (though I would sleep with her).
Kind of a fine line for me i guess.
My god has horns.... nah, I don't think he is real either.
To me the graphics have to be acceptable.
I couldnt' play a game that was antiquated lik UO or Everquest. There has to be some sort of engaging factor that makes me feel like I'm in an epic world. If I'm fighting to accept that this polygonal character in front of me is my avatar in the world then no matter how great the gameplay is it's not going to work.
On top of that, people have to remember that we are built differently. I'm sure you know people who are very logical, good at math or science etc. But ask them to get on stage or in front of a group and ask them to improv a scene or be creative in any way and they can't. Yet there are people (myself included) who could walk up in front of a crowd and be completeluy comfortable "being creative" (whether or not I was successful you would have to judge ; )
I say this because some people are affected by visual stimuli differently than others. So when you say that "graphics don't matter' you might not be "seeing" them or be affected by them like another person might.
It's also probably that "deep gameplay" might not affect some people as they don't require that type of diversion and draw their enjoyment from other means.
I quite frankly don't think one is better than another, just that we are born different, have different abilities and just require different things.
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
A line has to be drawn on how much. EQII has a extreme setting that is close to Oblivion with high res textures. But only the best computers can run it at a decent fps (and in cities, I doubt even by much). It also makes these games 8+GB in size (multiple DVD disk sized even). Not much if you have a terabyte of storage space, but those of us with even 2 Raptors, it's not getting smaller!
It's getting to be a situation of the haves and have nots. Those with 2008 quad proc rigs want everything including the kitchen sink; while those on older computers and even dialup, are asking for the game to even run.
Even with .dds these 2048x2048+ textures you guys want to WOW about, it's peaking the max of the older computers ability to process them (AGP has a limit in texture size alone, not including how many it can load into memory and deliver). The MMO/RPG market doesn't tend to buy the fancier computers, and games are showing it with gamers still playing on dialup (that can't be done with modern FPS games, like Crysis).
Technology is the limiting factor folks. Publishers can't alienate whole demographics, so a compromise has to be made and it starts at -- no Crysis graphics and settings. AGP is still being used (and if ATI has it way, it'll continue for 2 to 5 years more -- why I keep saying it'll be about 10 years before you can get HD quality graphics). Settle with 1024x1024 or less textures (BF2142 and F.E.A.R. quality) on important features, 512x512 on less important. If you push and push and push, the MMO market will get smaller and smaller and smaller, as no way 2048x2048 textures can be served to older computers and run with any decent fps. You're asking to shut down the market, not increase it.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
A line has to be drawn on how much. EQII has a extreme setting that is close to Oblivion with high res textures. But only the best computers can run it at a decent fps (and in cities, I doubt even by much). It also makes these games 8+GB in size (multiple DVD disk sized even). Not much if you have a terabyte of storage space, but those of us with even 2 Raptors, it's not getting smaller!
It's getting to be a situation of the haves and have nots. Those with 2008 quad proc rigs want everything including the kitchen sink; while those on older computers and even dialup, are asking for the game to even run.
Even with .dds these 2048x2048+ textures you guys want to WOW about, it's peaking the max of the older computers ability to process them (AGP has a limit in texture size alone, not including how many it can load into memory and deliver). The MMO/RPG market doesn't tend to buy the fancier computers, and games are showing it with gamers still playing on dialup (that can't be done with modern FPS games, like Crysis).
Technology is the limiting factor folks. Publishers can't alienate whole demographics, so a compromise has to be made and it starts at -- no Crysis graphics and settings. AGP is still being used (and if ATI has it way, it'll continue for 2 to 5 years more -- why I keep saying it'll be about 10 years before you can get HD quality graphics). Settle with 1024x1024 or less textures (BF2142 and F.E.A.R. quality) on important features, 512x512 on less important. If you push and push and push, the MMO market will get smaller and smaller and smaller, as no way 2048x2048 textures can be served to older computers and run with any decent fps. You're asking to shut down the market, not increase it.
Yes but EQII can be run at lower settings. those with higher settings can enjoy a more "spectacular" grapical capability. But eliminating this is not going to change much.
And quite frankly my machine can run EQII at the maximum but somewhat poorly in some areas. so I put it on the next one down and am find with it.
it's my thought that those who are complaining about "super graphics" might also be the people who won't ever upgrade their computer. Especially when I've seen people come to these forums to complain that they have a decent rig only it's not even close. It's so many years out of date as to be laughable.
Again, I don't have a super machine but ran many of conan's settings at high. Just tweaked here or there.
But keeping everything at the lvl of the original UO or original Lineage is not acceptable.
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
What I demand is a detailed avatar with lots of options in the character customization. I dont care if a rock or a tree have 100 or 30k polygons, or if the latest science have been used to create the sky, but my avatar is what the game surround, what I see in the center of my screen for hundreds of hours. Its much more fun to enter the game if you actually like your character, how it looks and moves, if it feels like your own creation, than if you dont feel anything at all about it. You can use many tricks to make the game world good looking and atmospheric without super heavy graphic, but your characters appearance is usually the first (and some times the last) impression you get from the game and should be the last thing to be cheating with.
See what I mean by the have and have not mentality of this debate?
Why do you think Vista is a failure as an OS? It's not the technology. It's not the graphics. It's not even any bug.
It's because businesses (Microsoft's major income) won't update their computers to buy it.
Most computer users don't update their computer every 1 or 2 years. I'm a computer builder and I cobble this computer out of spare parts -- 90% 2003 parts (only the videocard and HDD are newer), as paying for first generation parts is really a waste of money. Heck, my tech relative who's been a network engineer/system builder for over 20 years, even his rig is only a PresHot/800mhz. Only folks buying the latest and greatest are those who also buy into the latest and greatest hype.
When ATI continues to make AGP cards [now up to the HD series even] (when everyone said AGP was dead), it can't stay on the shelves (despite many have to buy 600+watt PSUs to power the beasts). ATI didn't do it to be nice mind you, but they did it because of the AMD users that has to use AGP still. They weren't switching, and if they did, they would switch to Intel.
So we have a market standoff. Customers aren't upgrading. Vista is selling more downgraded licenses (Windows XP). ATI is still providing AGP. DX10 is underused and a more a novelty (could be due to all those AGP cards sold!). And DDR3 sits waiting forever to be loved.
You're looking at at least 5 years before you get what you want. More realistically (and from my standpoint of keeping old computers alive and kicking) 10 years.
Enjoy your Crysis. The rest will be happy at medium/high settings (and hoping games don't outstrip our HD/D capacity -- and one things for sure, I'm not trading these expensive Raptors for more space).
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
See what I mean by the have and have not mentality of this debate?
Why do you think Vista is a failure as an OS? It's not the technology. It's not the graphics. It's not even any bug.
It's because businesses (Microsoft's major income) won't update their computers to buy it.
Most computer users don't update their computer every 1 or 2 years. I'm a computer builder and I cobble this computer out of spare parts -- 90% 2003 parts (only the videocard and HDD are newer), as paying for first generation parts is really a waste of money. Heck, my tech relative who's been a network engineer/system builder for over 20 years, even his rig is only a PresHot/800mhz. Only folks buying the latest and greatest are those who also buy into the latest and greatest hype.
When ATI continues to make AGP cards [now up to the HD series even] (when everyone said AGP was dead), it can't stay on the shelves (despite many have to buy 600+watt PSUs to power the beasts). ATI didn't do it to be nice mind you, but they did it because of the AMD users that has to use AGP still. They weren't switching, and if they did, they would switch to Intel.
So we have a market standoff. Customers aren't upgrading. Vista is selling more downgraded licenses (Windows XP). ATI is still providing AGP. DX10 is underused and a more a novelty (could be due to all those AGP cards sold!). And DDR3 sits waiting forever to be loved.
You're looking at at least 5 years before you get what you want. More realistically (and from my standpoint of keeping old computers alive and kicking) 10 years.
Enjoy your Crysis. The rest will be happy at medium/high settings (and hoping games don't outstrip our HD/D capacity -- and one things for sure, I'm not trading these expensive Raptors for more space).
I don't have Vista and have a moderately good machine. Sorry, sounds to me like you are just bitter. I also saved my money to put everything in it. That was my decision and I didn't purchase other things in order to do it.
Has nothing to do with have or have not but what you are willing to spend your money on.
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
Graphics aren't a big deal to me in mmo's. I would much rather have good gameplay and a high population....
Many AoC'ers play the game just for the graphics, which is quite sad.
I could rant about this all day, but to keep my post from getting annoying i'll just say gameplay is what's most important. It's a hard lesson a lot of companies have learned lately. Hopefully the age of the shiney yet crappy mmo is over and gameplay and community actually take the lead for most new games coming out in the future.
Not all who wander are lost...
[quote]Originally posted by Sovrath
I don't have Vista and have a moderately good machine. Sorry, sounds to me like you are just bitter. I also saved my money to put everything in it. That was my decision and I didn't purchase other things in order to do it.
Has nothing to do with have or have not but what you are willing to spend your money on.
[/quote]
What's bitter is that you refuse to see the writing on the wall. No matter how the flashing signs flare, you're set in a mode that won't exist for y-e-a-r-s to come.
Get it through the fog: technology is your limiting factor. What works for you, WILL NOT WORK FOR THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS. I said it in very detail terms WHY. And I'll repeat it once more: AGP cards have a limit on texture sizes and bandwidth. You can't push high res textures through it without consequences in gameplay. Those high res textures are huge on disk space. Huge disk space becomes a problem not only putting the damn game on the HD, disk fragmentation (have you noticed AAA games using archives now to keep the 1001 files together on disk?? Do you think they just did that for show????). Then add the issue of page file increases (and if you increase the page file beyond your physical memory to compensate, your gaming is going to start crawling).
What looks simple to you, is not simple to deliver in reality -- at least now. Gameplay is the most important issue in game development, it comes first and foremost to graphics and audio. No gameplay, you wouldn't even need to worry about graphics, as there won't be a game to play.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Speaking for myself, no I don't care about graphics. Art direction and quality are far more important to me than graphics. Case in point: Ultima Online. A beautiful game, but the first time they tried to upgrade the game to 3D it was ugly. Even better case in point, World of Warcraft. WoW's graphics were dated even before its release in 2004 but you can hardly tell because the art direction is so beautiful.
However, I think developers do have to focus on graphics these days because the vast majority of gamers (and gaming media) are complete mouth-breathing graphic whores. And I mean that from the bottom of my heart. Blizzard gets away with it because they focus more on quality than any other developer I know, and they've earned that right in the industry over the years. Most developers can't risk not having the latest greatest graphics.
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
I myself dont put graphics too high on my list of things to look for in an mmo. There is a minimum that I will accept, however, that minimum isnt too high overall. There are plenty of games where I read posts about games where a bunch of people whine about graphics and when I look at the game I just kind of go HuH? looks good to me.
For me the most important element is do the graphics detract or add to the immersion element in playing a game. They dont have to be super duper great to add to the game and they dont have to be crap to detract from the game. The best example I can come up with is when EQ first came out my roomates girlfriend gave up trying to get him off the game and started playing the game herself. It was her first real computer game and within a week she was having dreams based on the game and what she was doing in it. Thats immersion
. So in total its all about whether you can let your creative mind go and simply think as if you are in the game world and to stop trying to analyse the game world for flaws. Every game world we create will have flaws, but if you blur your mind to them and look past them one can get a heck of a lot more enjoyment out of a game.
i care about animations and diverse character appearances (armor, hair, body, clothes etc). Bad animations just kill any immersion.
I agree with the above. I'm not too bothered about graphics but I can be really picky about animations for example the jumping in some games like vanguard, EQ2 and lotro feels a bit floppy to me :P ( not a very good way to describe it but im sure u all know what im talking about)
Its all about content baby, then graphics.
Thats two things.
You can have ugly graphics and you can have lowend graphics.
WoW does have ugly comic graphics. Ugh.
If a game has lowend graphics, i.e. If the graphics are beautiful, but have low resolution, thats OK with me.
i dont mind cartoon style graphic but bugged one yes wow is cartoon style and it works game maker should stick to cartoon style
hell even in books cartoon do have a lot of difference gotic cartoon ,horror cartoon etc
check guild waras itys very nice and its not a ressource hogg but the i heard it was design on laptop if its the case that would put a known limit that aoc designer forgot to check .hell this game would hav e been good in 2 years but now lol if your computer is the same age as wow forget it you ll hate this game if just for the ressource it take to run at minimum(crysis anyone)
For me its "stylization" over "realisation", It takes much for skill and talent to hand draw.paint textures and to create buidlings and worlds not found in the real world (and make it look good), then it does to take a photo of a wall and slap it on a a model thats been modeled on a wall out side your window.
Well said. Its not the number of polygons you have but how you use them.
UnatcoII, you are making this more complex than it is.
All I'm saying is that graphics need to be able to capture the imagination of the player. At some point these things start looking dated depending upon the art design.
Look at WoW. In my opinion it doesn't need to really update anything because the art design is such that it is essentially timeless.
And as for the EQII example, you might remember that when it was first released it was very difficult to put it on the high setting let alone super high (or whatever it is called). Now things have moved a long a bit and with a few modifications on can run it very high pretty well.
And look at Lineage II. 4+ years old game and with the exception of a seam or two in the world I still state that due to its art design it has some of the best graphics in any game. I was admiring how the sunlight bounced off of my character to the point that it almost looked like a real thing.
As I stated before as long as the graphics are capable of capturing the imagination of the player and are capable of provided an epic feel then the game will be successful. but no, no one will be able to go back to the EQ graphics or early UO or Lineage (I) again.
Besides, it seems to me that the people in the game studio who are responsible for gameplay are different than the graphics people. And since gameplay is more about ideas I think the problems with games lie in the imaginations of those designers.
And quite frankly (and this is where I piss you off) I am not a socialist. I don't care about a game company having to make things so that everyone can take part. Shocking right? If a game company wants to make a game that runs on the top 1% of machines and they think they can actually make it successful, more power to them. It's their dime and their risk. If there are people who can play it and the game can work then fine. I'll just move on to something else.
I'm sorry I just think you fret too much.
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
Those who say graphics don't matter and gameplay is everything are full of shit. Graphics matter equally as much as game play.
If graphics don't matter then everyone should go back and play Ultima Online.
Personally, graphics play a role to a certain point. I simply cannot digest a 3D game made in the 90s after having played so much Guild Wars. I feel I have less incentive to progress in-game if my character looks like a walking block of pixels.
With that being said, amazing graphics are nowhere near needed. I'm perfectly fine with Anarchy Online's graphics to be honest, which are dated to the point of an engine upgrade being on the way.
So those who are still playing UO are now full of shit because graphics don't matter to them (a sweeping statement might I add)?
Yes, roughly the 75k people still playing UO are those who are still holding onto past accolades hanging around the bank hope'n someone from back in the day might come back to chat with them, the mentally ill, those who go back to UO in disgust of all the current games hoping that they will get the same feleling they felt when they were first chased by a dreadlord, and the rest are people still on a dial-up.
I shall take my bow now.
Oh? Prove it is all I can say.
I'd gladly give up on some of the shinies to have better game play.