Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Graphics

123457

Comments

  • ScoliozScolioz Member UncommonPosts: 110
    edited November 2017
    Scolioz said:
    "EQ was a better game than both AC and DAoC."

    No it wasn't. AC1 was easily superior. It was ahead of its time in many more ways.


    This is purely a matter of personal opinion.

    no it's a fact...  it had the largest land mass / world of any mmorpg at the time.. and it was seamless / zoneless..

    EQ had neither


    svanndrivendawndcutbi001AnthurjimmywolfMrMelGibson
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,630
    If you selectively pick just one or two criteria, you can say anything is better than anything else. Beets are better than bananas - because they are purple and round. Never mind there could be 100 other points of comparison. 
    svannKyleranMrMelGibson

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335
    Scolioz said:
    Scolioz said:
    "EQ was a better game than both AC and DAoC."

    No it wasn't. AC1 was easily superior. It was ahead of its time in many more ways.


    This is purely a matter of personal opinion.

    no it's a fact...  it had the largest land mass / world of any mmorpg at the time.. and it was seamless / zoneless..

    EQ had neither

    Specific game feature are factual.

    Best is, and always will be, purely opinion.

    You can list game features in an attempt to persuade others to share your opinion, but you can never "prove" an opinion, because what makes something "the best" is entirely subjective.  For example, I could argue EQ was "the best" based on their implementation of the Shaman and Enchanter classes. It is subjective, an opinion, and it is a fact that, for me, these were the things that made EQ better than any other game.

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

  • XthosXthos Member UncommonPosts: 2,734
    I don't think it is a good comparison (EQ vs. DAoC).  They are different games, and I personally have them in my top 5.   I tried AC as I stated, and I just really did not like it.  I do like a large world though.

    UO/EQ/DAoC, for what they were are my 3 top mmorpgs of their type for me.  I liked Vanguard (yes it had problems, but I had a brand new top of the line computer at the time, got it 3 days before VG released,so a lot of the problems didn't hit me like they did some.), SWG (It had balance/content issues, but it was a good game that needed tweaked, not NGE'd), surprisingly Secret World (I am not a big questor, but I really did like the stories/quests/ease of switching builds, but they didn't have enough money to keep the quality content coming.).

    I play Archeage now, but I think they have killed it with player nations and some of the other things for me.  The blind direction, not too creative pvp content, and they have pretty much ignored pve.  Along with getting worse with their money grabs, but p2w/f2p is a whole other discussion.


    So, when I watch Pantheon videos, I see a lot of EQ, with better graphics so far.  It is too early to know what direction they are going to go with things though, since it is pre-alpha (although we are probably less than a month away from the pre-alpha people getting in), and maybe 1-2 years away from launch.  UI/animations/characters/outfits are often some of the last things that are worked on, so I do not overly focus on those things and if I love them, till closer to launch.  2D UO does not put me off, so as long as the game play/content is good, I have seen no graphic red flags yet.  I do not know how their cash reserves/funding are sitting, but I really hope they have a healthy enough amount to deliver what they say they want to, which is big open world dungeons, big world, good content, and hopefully a good amount of starting cities with unique feel.  I do not see me at least not buying it and playing it.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    Scolioz said:
    Scolioz said:
    "EQ was a better game than both AC and DAoC."

    No it wasn't. AC1 was easily superior. It was ahead of its time in many more ways.


    This is purely a matter of personal opinion.

    no it's a fact...  it had the largest land mass / world of any mmorpg at the time.. and it was seamless / zoneless..

    EQ had neither


    ^never played EQ, and has no idea how big it was. probably read about zones on wikipedia.
    [Deleted User]


  • ScoliozScolioz Member UncommonPosts: 110
    edited November 2017
    When AC1 first launched the land mass size was 1/4 the size of Rhode Island and was completely zoneless... EQ was neither.... and no other mmorpg at the time was either
  • drivendawndrivendawn Member RarePosts: 2,162
    Scolioz said:
    When AC1 first launched the land mass size was 1/4 the size of Rhode Island and was completely zoneless... EQ was neither.... and no other mmorpg at the time was either
    It was awesome but again it is your opinion that it is better because of what it had to offer. I liked and played it more as well but again opinion.
  • XthosXthos Member UncommonPosts: 2,734
    Antarctica is bigger than Europe, where are you building your house?   I like large game worlds too, but stating that since AC had the largest land mass at launch, it was default the best is silly.  The persons claim it is opinion is correct.

    I dislike instanced housing, some people love it, both sides would claim something superior, for having it their way.  I feel like instanced housing is a bank/closet and not part of the world I am playing in.
    Dullahan
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 4,232
    Xthos said:
    Antarctica is bigger than Europe, where are you building your house?   I like large game worlds too, but stating that since AC had the largest land mass at launch, it was default the best is silly.  The persons claim it is opinion is correct.

    I dislike instanced housing, some people love it, both sides would claim something superior, for having it their way.  I feel like instanced housing is a bank/closet and not part of the world I am playing in.
    The horizontal scale also matters.  A single step of 10 meters is different than a single step of 50 meters.  AC may have claimed to have a larger land mass than EQ1, but were the scales entirely the same?

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 37,006
    Mendel said:
    Xthos said:
    Antarctica is bigger than Europe, where are you building your house?   I like large game worlds too, but stating that since AC had the largest land mass at launch, it was default the best is silly.  The persons claim it is opinion is correct.

    I dislike instanced housing, some people love it, both sides would claim something superior, for having it their way.  I feel like instanced housing is a bank/closet and not part of the world I am playing in.
    The horizontal scale also matters.  A single step of 10 meters is different than a single step of 50 meters.  AC may have claimed to have a larger land mass than EQ1, but were the scales entirely the same?
    While landmass size is a consideration, i think what content is actually within available landmass is perhaps more important. 


    AmatheMendelKiori001

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    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






  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,630
    A big world is nice (especially if you can build things in it).

    A lack of zones also can be nice (unless it lags everything out).

    But those are considerations maybe #73 and #74 on a list of what matters most to me in a mmorpg. 

    I never played AC1. It may have been a fantastic game. But I would not lament never playing it based just on world size and zone free play. 
    svannKyleran

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 6,573
    Concentrating on graphics makes everything else take a back seat. 

    The topic is now turning to land mass.  Better graphics time takes away from land mass. 

    I can't speak for AC or EQ1 but I can talk about Vanguard.  It had a lot of empty space because they concentrated on realism.  I for one don't care about realism, however the draw distance was nice to be able to see miles away.  But even still, if this takes away from features then NG.  What keeps people playing are features, graphics may catch the eye but content keeps players playing.

    Housing is another flop in mmos.  Trying to give players a plot of land is a very bad idea.  See Vanguard and ArcheAge, what a mess.  What a waste of time resource that only pisses the players off.



    Now the last developer video was about city building and graphics. It seems VR cleaned up all the flaws from the last one.  No pop in and outs of the players, disconnected hands or odd shaped building placements.  BUT WHAT I DID SEE, is a lot of resource time in making everything look great. 

    I hope this doesn't take away from game play, features and content.  Or worst 5 more years of development only to have a broken game like Vanguard.    


  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 37,006
    Concentrating on graphics makes everything else take a back seat. 

    The topic is now turning to land mass.  Better graphics time takes away from land mass. 

    I can't speak for AC or EQ1 but I can talk about Vanguard.  It had a lot of empty space because they concentrated on realism.  I for one don't care about realism, however the draw distance was nice to be able to see miles away.  But even still, if this takes away from features then NG.  What keeps people playing are features, graphics may catch the eye but content keeps players playing.

    Housing is another flop in mmos.  Trying to give players a plot of land is a very bad idea.  See Vanguard and ArcheAge, what a mess.  What a waste of time resource that only pisses the players off.



    Now the last developer video was about city building and graphics. It seems VR cleaned up all the flaws from the last one.  No pop in and outs of the players, disconnected hands or odd shaped building placements.  BUT WHAT I DID SEE, is a lot of resource time in making everything look great. 

    I hope this doesn't take away from game play, features and content.  Or worst 5 more years of development only to have a broken game like Vanguard.    


    That last sentence is a valid concern. If development drags too long it can become necessary to do graphics update,  further delaying the game.

    Actually have seen this happen on a few titles.

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    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






  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    If world size was most important, Vanguard would have been a huge success. Alas, it's the content that fills the world and how it plays that's more important.
    [Deleted User]


  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,625
    Kyleran said:

    That last sentence is a valid concern. If development drags too long it can become necessary to do graphics update,  further delaying the game.

    Actually have seen this happen on a few titles.

    That's probably why most studios wait for the graphics effort last and use a bunch of low quality and store bought assets as placeholders. Redoing work is costly and I would think an indie company with a limited budget would want to make most efficient use of funds as possible.

    I do love pretty graphics, but satisfying play is much more important to me.
    KyleransvannMrMelGibson
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Kyleran said:
    Kyleran said:
    delete5230 said:j
    Xthos said:
    EQ only had 1 pure melee character, so their wasn't classes, every other melee was a hybrid that had spells (EQ was balanced around grouping, so warrior almost had to be bland the way they did it, but yes trying to solo level a warrior was like hitting your head against a wall.).

    As for graphics, they are fine, I would rather have content.  They need to work on animations and such, but it isn't even in pre-alpha (they seem to think it is close to going into that phase), and from watching other games, animations/character touches are one of the last things they work on polishing, so it is barely worth nit picking at this point.  They will need to get the animations to be smooth though, a lot of people seem to be sticklers (make or break) for this.  It doesn't bother me that much.


    I agree graphics are fine, I don't even care about the animations.

    I'm worried about coding..... I don't see how people can't understand the difference. 
    You aren't being specific enough. What "coding" are you worried about, as graphics are coded you know.

    Netcode, UI, itemization, DBs, core engine, middleware, cloud architecture, client side?

    Lets go back to the original post on page one, it's all explained their.  From, I'm not a programmer to technical problems in the latest video. 

    I'm looking beyond "eye candy" ! 

    Watch the latest podcast on the updated graphics again. 
    - When the team is on the tower, if you watch a player simply disappears.
    - When the player is looking off the tower and zooms out you see clipping of the entire page. Maybe this is reloading the page ?
    - When the Tank goes down, he seems to melt in the ground.
    - When the fighter is in the cave looking below the bridge, his hands and sward are completely clipped from his body.

    Note:
    This is just a fraction of discrepancies, as I just fast watched the video again.

    If you think about early development of mmos, problems such as these plagued Sony Online games the most (EQ1,EQ2,Vanguard). Other early mmos were not as bad for "coding".

    So you listed sub problems..... Take your pick..... Your the programmer, I'm not ! 

    Here watch the video again, and PLEASE look beyond the "eye candy"     

    Apologies, just started my "development" career in June, I'v been a program/project manager most of my career, and my app doesn't have "graphics" ;)

    Sounds like clipping and connecting the avatar to the world are your greatest concerns (not sure what the technical terms are for that), but I understand your point, and I would agree that's very important to resolve. 

    I'll take your word on them btw, rare is the day I'll watch a video, especially about gameplay,  just not what I normally  do. (Especially on phones, way too small)
    I feel EXACTLY the same way about watching videos on video games...


    No, I don't have any relevant point to add.  Just wanted to say that.  Carry on.
    KyleranXarko

    image
  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 1,037
    edited December 2017
    Scolioz said:
    Scolioz said:
    "EQ was a better game than both AC and DAoC."

    No it wasn't. AC1 was easily superior. It was ahead of its time in many more ways.


    This is purely a matter of personal opinion.

    no it's a fact...  it had the largest land mass / world of any mmorpg at the time.. and it was seamless / zoneless..

    EQ had neither



    Mechanically, EQ was superior.  Gameplay is king in MMORPGs.  No one really cared much about EQ's zones.  If anything, it helped the game have superior performance compared to its competitors.

    The fact that it had the largest land mass didn't matter at all, since these games were based on Levels and players restricted the land mass they inhabited based on the level of their characters.  There was no reason to go to Greater Faydark on a level 20+ character in EQ, for example, unless you were going to Kelethin or the High Elf City.

    We see how this plays out everytime a MMORPG releases an expansion and/or raises the level cap.  Old content pretty much dies out immediately.  It doesn't matter that WoW has 5+ continents and dozens of zones.  Almost no one really utilizes the old content outside of Achievement Farming or Leveling New characters (if they don't boost).  It's effectively non-factor.

    Most of the early MMORPGs were like that, since there was no level scaling (like in GW2).

    The land mass argument is worthless.

    The Zoneless/Seamless argument is worthless.

    The only thing that mattered, was the Lore, Mechanics, and Gameplay...  and EQ was superior on all of those fronts.

    This is why EQ survived, and its competitors from those days largely died out (or simply hung around "cause why not," while being effectively dead games).

    I think the inevitable dead content "problem" is the strongest argument for getting rid of levels in MMORPGs (and is why newer games are implementing level scaling).
  • drivendawndrivendawn Member RarePosts: 2,162
    edited December 2017
    Darksworm said:
    Scolioz said:
    Scolioz said:
    "EQ was a better game than both AC and DAoC."

    No it wasn't. AC1 was easily superior. It was ahead of its time in many more ways.


    This is purely a matter of personal opinion.

    no it's a fact...  it had the largest land mass / world of any mmorpg at the time.. and it was seamless / zoneless..

    EQ had neither



    Mechanically, EQ was superior.  Gameplay is king in MMORPGs.  No one really cared much about EQ's zones.  If anything, it helped the game have superior performance compared to its competitors.

    The fact that it had the largest land mass didn't matter at all, since these games were based on Levels and players restricted the land mass they inhabited based on the level of their characters.  There was no reason to go to Greater Faydark on a level 20+ character in EQ, for example, unless you were going to Kelethin or the High Elf City.

    We see how this plays out everytime a MMORPG releases an expansion and/or raises the level cap.  Old content pretty much dies out immediately.  It doesn't matter that WoW has 5+ continents and dozens of zones.  Almost no one really utilizes the old content outside of Achievement Farming or Leveling New characters (if they don't boost).  It's effectively non-factor.

    Most of the early MMORPGs were like that, since there was no level scaling (like in GW2).

    The land mass argument is worthless.

    The Zoneless/Seamless argument is worthless.

    The only thing that mattered, was the Lore, Mechanics, and Gameplay...  and EQ was superior on all of those fronts.

    This is why EQ survived, and its competitors from those days largely died out (or simply hung around "cause why not," while being effectively dead games).

    I think the inevitable dead content "problem" is the strongest argument for getting rid of levels in MMORPGs (and is why newer games are implementing level scaling).
    I agree that zone less versus non zone less is no reason to say one game is better than another. However the game play argument is still subjective. Can we move on and get back on graphics as this is the point of this thread.
  • ScoliozScolioz Member UncommonPosts: 110
    edited December 2017
    I played AC1 for 2 years before finally trying EQ.. The first impression I had of EQ when I first logged in was that the graphics were shit... the game moved slow as hell.. and the zoning sucked... 

    In AC1 your character ran like a jack rabbit on speed when you put tons of points into running skill..  everything felt quicker and more fluid..  EQ1 just felt like a retirement home in comparison..
  • Gyva02Gyva02 Member RarePosts: 485
    Scolioz said:
    I played AC1 for 2 years before finally trying EQ.. The first impression I had of EQ when I first logged in was that the graphics were shit... the game moved slow as hell.. and the zoning sucked... 

    In AC1 your character ran like a jack rabbit on speed when you put tons of points into running skill..  everything felt quicker and more fluid..  EQ1 just felt like a retirement home in comparison..
    JustsomenoobDullahanAelious
  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,223
    edited December 2017
    Scolioz said:
    I played AC1 for 2 years before finally trying EQ.. The first impression I had of EQ when I first logged in was that the graphics were shit... the game moved slow as hell.. and the zoning sucked... 

    In AC1 your character ran like a jack rabbit on speed when you put tons of points into running skill..  everything felt quicker and more fluid..  EQ1 just felt like a retirement home in comparison..
    Thats probably because you went from a fully developed character with "tons" of point in running to a character that is just starting out, has no runspeed yet, and doesnt know how to get anywhere.
    jimmywolf
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    Felt like a track star in eq compared to ffxi if we're talking about run speed.


  • Gyva02Gyva02 Member RarePosts: 485
    Dullahan said:
    Felt like a track star in eq compared to ffxi if we're talking about run speed.
    Bard?
  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 3,075
    I just looked at videos of Pantheon, the graphics do not impress me, and the animations look uninspiring. My problem with the MMO genre is not going to be fixed by a game like this that likely has limited innovation. It's probably why I'm playing a survival game now because it is new and innovative to me at least. 

    Oh well. I will likely not play this game unless they do something truly innovative. 

    Cryomatrix
    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    I just looked at videos of Pantheon, the graphics do not impress me, and the animations look uninspiring. My problem with the MMO genre is not going to be fixed by a game like this that likely has limited innovation. It's probably why I'm playing a survival game now because it is new and innovative to me at least. 

    Oh well. I will likely not play this game unless they do something truly innovative. 

    Cryomatrix
    They have plenty of fresh stuff going into the game, but at this point just having a survival style mmorpg again (where healing takes time and resources and death has impact) will make for an experience that feels new to most people. You should probably look into what the game is going to offer before making a decision. Would also be recommended that you don't judge the pre-alpha state of graphics and animations as a finished product. The game has come a long way.

    From


    to

    to



    It's a work in progress.
    dcutbi001Kiori001


Sign In or Register to comment.