But getting back on track of the original topic can AoC maintain the above graphics and still have a seamless world like lotro does, and JUST as important can AoC settings be lowered so lesser computers play it like Lotro.

I'm not a big lotro fan, but they did do some amizing things that are state of the art as far as graphics. I think they did it progressively with patches over time but not sure.

well i been looking forward to playing this mainly becuz of the GFX even starting building my own for a hope at getting max setting.
currently running a IP34 pro, 8800GTX, and a E8400.
but after hearing about the so called "ghost wall" i started to look else were but still give the game a chance just in case people are exagerating a bit like they do about every game...

Forgive me for going offtopic again but i had to post some half decent LOTRO screenshots because the ones i have seen so far just dont do the game Justice at all.

DirectX 10 Screenshot Winners: Week 1!

DirectX 10 Screenshot Winners: Week 2!

DirectX 10 Screenshot Winners: Week 3!

DirectX 10 Screenshot Winners: Week 4!

The Shire 1

The Shire 2

Originally posted by Shannia

Here is the thing, graphics are not the problem.  AoC and DX10 has not doubt given us some of the best screen shots in gaming.  The quality of the screen shots can not be denied.  The problem is, to play the game at the quality of those screen shots, i.e. on max settings to play the game with the same graphic quality as the screen shots shown, you are going to need one hell of a system.  Most people are not going to want to spend $1,500 to $3,000 to play a game on max settings.

A lot of people bought systems and monitors one to two years ago in anticipation of this game.  Lets just hope those same systems can handle the game with any upgrades Funcom has made to the engine or graphics since then.

 

Wrong. Have a very close friend who is in Aoc Beta so i have seen the game running, and the gameplay in AOC is done with high ql graphics wihtout any issues nor client lag. Movement fluid too.. truly amazing.

And you do not need an high end machine to run it properly btw. Thats a lie.

AOC will be the reference for future games in terms of graphic quality for some years y.

Originally posted by page

But getting back on track of the original topic can AoC maintain the above graphics and still have a seamless world like lotro does, and JUST as important can AoC settings be lowered so lesser computers play it like Lotro.

I'm not a big lotro fan, but they did do some amizing things that are state of the art as far as graphics. I think they did it progressively with patches over time but not sure.

One of the big gripes around is the fact AoC has instanced zones in the vein of GW. The quality of zones, the size is debatable until NDA is lifted but there is also a buzz about "channeled" play (meaning limited free romaing).

Personally I have a hard time beleiving what some people are posting about graphics being great and not very hardware demanding.

Originally posted by Illyrian

Erm, what seamless world?

 

 

One of the big gripes around is the fact AoC has instanced zones in the vein of GW. The quality of zones, the size is debatable until NDA is lifted but there is also a buzz about "channeled" play (meaning limited free romaing).

 

Personally I have a hard time beleiving what some people are posting about graphics being great and not very hardware demanding.

Get lost troll.

AoC doesnt have instances, AoC has zones and there is a HUGE difference between the two, so stop spreading misinformation troll.

GW...******* *****

I like the Lotro graphics, I like the Aoc graphics too. I have a "monster" machine, so I've no problems to display superior graphics. Wow is just a bad joke, the graphics are supposed to appeal to younger people. Warhammer is going the same way (too bad, I like Warhammer, but the graphics, ewww). I know, the gameplay is important, but you cant play without graphics, only when you close your eyes )

Originally posted by thexrated

While you might not like the cartoonish aspect of WoW, it's artwork is far superior to LOTRO. It is distinctive and gives the gaming world a lot of immersion.

I also think that AoC is looking a lot better than WAR for example because AoC also has distinctive artwork.

Both LOTRO, EQ2 and WAR have similar problem with their artwork. They look boxed, too sharp and in particulary when you look far they look very unpleasant. My main point is that graphics is a separate issue from artwork. The cartoon-like artwork what allows WoW to look both distinctive and good even with a lesser graphic quality gives it edge over games which aim for photorealism or close to it.

AoC does a good job bringing a tad bit of realism, but with distinctive artwork that is not so different from quite well drawn Conan comics.

Again you might hate how wow looks (I don't particulary like it myself), but I can understand why Blizzard chose to represent it that way.

Just compare the following to see the difference between artwork in WoW vs. AOC vs. WAR (in order)

Both AoC and WoW look quite distictive and pleasant to look where as the picture from WAR could be from any number of MMORPGs released over the past 6-8 or even from some that will be released soon.

Interesting comment. Hope you are right. A smooth and pretty game (AoC) could be interesting.

Originally posted by Psiho246

 

Originally posted by Illyrian

Erm, what seamless world?

 

 

One of the big gripes around is the fact AoC has instanced zones in the vein of GW. The quality of zones, the size is debatable until NDA is lifted but there is also a buzz about "channeled" play (meaning limited free romaing).

 

Personally I have a hard time beleiving what some people are posting about graphics being great and not very hardware demanding.

 

Get lost troll.

AoC doesnt have instances, AoC has zones and there is a HUGE difference between the two, so stop spreading misinformation troll.

 

GW...******* *****

Hmm, let us see, an enligtened response. Definitelly a plus.

AoC, by its own official forums, have zones separated by a loading screen so how does that make a "seamless" world? Instances might be small like in WoW (at least soem of them), zones in AoC might be large but they function on the same principle. You load to zone into one, you load to zone into other so I fail to see such a HUGE difference.  

And this is why I prefer to hear naysayers - fanbois have a tendency to glue to one aspect of the game and then downplay or ignore possible issues. I don't beleive the hype or the slanders however I heard enough to encourage me to wait for a free trial.

It is not a seamless world and I in no way stated that.

Also the world is not instanced and is nothing like Guild Wars and comparing the two is just trolling.

Instance =/= zone

Originally posted by Psiho246

It is not a seamless world and I in no way stated that.

Also the world is not instanced and is nothing like Guild Wars and comparing the two is just trolling.

Instance =/= zone

You have a very interesting defintion of trolling. Sorry but the concept does remind me of GW zones.

Instance = zone

Each to its own though I suspect you are up in arms against anything that is not 101% worship of yet unreleased AoC.

Originally posted by Illyrian

 

 Instance = zone

A Zone is a place where you CAN see and interact with about every character that is in this same zone, so in no way is Instance = Zone.

Troll off.

Originally posted by Electriceye

 

Originally posted by Illyrian

 

 Instance = zone

Difference between Instance and Zone:
An instance is a place where you can't see anybody except your group (if ur in 1)

 

A Zone is a place where you CAN see and interact with about every character that is in this same zone, so in no way is Instance = Zone.

Troll off.

Oh goodies, another one.

So the difference between the zone and instance according to you is the fact you are alone in one and have company in the other.

Hove exactly dos that change the fact you need to load into one (be it a zone or an instance) or the fact that zone can be miniscule. My point was at the top of the chain stating that world is seamlesss and the fact you load zones negates that.

I have a laugh thoguh, if this is trolling I cannot wait to see screams and shrieks when OB starts and people start really trolling.

I would appreciate comments by somebody like Avery or Xasapis but I found the later's post on the subject that clarifies the things I was wondering about.

Originally posted by page

This is not a shot at AoC. I played most all MMO's, at least the heavy hitters. And I spent most all day outside but I was thinking about graphics and how far they had advanced in the last few years, and my OPINION is not very far.

WoW= cartoon

EQ2= a little better, but something just seems off

Vanguard=same as EQ2

D&D= a little better, but thats just me

Lotro= same as WoW, but I guess it got better from what they say ( kind of smart, by doing it with a patch ) 

Tabula Rase=same as EQ2 but the terrain is not as flat

From old to new they just don't seem to get much better, Warhammer seems as if there playing the safe road and just do the WoW thing, BUT Age of Conan is trying to give what a lot of people are screaming for high end graphics. And of coarse I'm not a dev., but to do this it seems as if they have to have smaller zone's and load times and maybe even walls, like a lot of off-line RPG's and they just were not prepared for people to not except that.

So I guess technology is  not their yet, maybe not even close. So i guess they have to make a choice. I guess in 2008 good graphics still comes with a price tag.

I believe you forgot about Aion who's coming out in 2008 . It has an oustanding graphic which from my opinion it has the best one.

http://mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setView/overView/gameID/253

 If there is zone and load times in AoC, their is a good chance that buildings could have load times too.  I can handle load times if zones are large, but not buildings like in most RPG's. 

 And going off topic a little, I just hope that there is not a lot of cinematic cut scenes. I just can't help thinking AoC is like most new RPG's. In all the stuff I learned about AoC, no one has ever mentioned cut scenes but its a concern I have.

Originally posted by Illyrian

 

Originally posted by Electriceye

 

Originally posted by Illyrian

 

 Instance = zone

Difference between Instance and Zone:
An instance is a place where you can't see anybody except your group (if ur in 1)

 

A Zone is a place where you CAN see and interact with about every character that is in this same zone, so in no way is Instance = Zone.

Troll off.

 

Oh goodies, another one.

 

So the difference between the zone and instance according to you is the fact you are alone in one and have company in the other.

 

Hove exactly dos that change the fact you need to load into one (be it a zone or an instance) or the fact that zone can be miniscule. My point was at the top of the chain stating that world is seamlesss and the fact you load zones negates that.

 

I have a laugh thoguh, if this is trolling I cannot wait to see screams and shrieks when OB starts and people start really trolling.

 

I would appreciate comments by somebody like Avery or Xasapis but I found the later's post on the subject that clarifies the things I was wondering about.

Just don't pay attention to the trolling thing if you ain't 1 but it's just the way you type that feels like it. Again if u don't feel concerned by my last 2 words just ignore them and plz accept my apologies!

Sorry but Zones and Instances are the same thing.  They only differ in size but the mechanics are the same.  And if Funcom uses zones like EQ2 does then you may very well see multiple instances of the same Zone if the population is too high in a zone.  That is how EQ2 handles zones, so I wouldn't be surprised. 

Now nowhere does it say that instances are only like WoW's instances.   Instances can be like Darkness Falls in Dark Age of Camelot.  It was an area that you portalled into that was smaller then a "Zone" but had people from different realms and groups in it. 

Instance does not mean "WoW" style instances.  That is just one type there are numerous different instance uses and it doesn't equal single party automatically.

So actually you guys saying instances do not equal zones are the ones trolling.

No there is not going to be numerous copies of the same area there will be only ONE zone which you need to load to like in any game when entering a house, castle or zone.
Every player that enters the zone will be able to interact and play with any other player that is in the same zone and you don't need to be in a group to do that.
There is only one instanced area in the game and that is the PVE city area.
Dungeons are probably also instanced.

To compare with WoW, area is Kalimdor and going from Kalimdor to Eastern Kingdoms (other zone) is no problem at all and theres no copy of anything anywhere.

Originally posted by page

From old to new they just don't seem to get much better, Warhammer seems as if there playing the safe road and just do the WoW thing, BUT Age of Conan is trying to give what a lot of people are screaming for high end graphics. And of coarse I'm not a dev., but to do this it seems as if they have to have smaller zone's and load times and maybe even walls, like a lot of off-line RPG's and they just were not prepared for people to not except that.

So I guess technology is  not their yet, maybe not even close. So i guess they have to make a choice. I guess in 2008 good graphics still comes with a price tag.

Actually, WAR went with the way thing been done for 20 some years for them! Look at anything from Gamework Shop and you will see, it always been like it from 40k to fantasy... and in fact WoW copy the format.

The problem is not technology, but the _avg_ computer setup, I played all those games you mention, and agree on most part of what you did say about them. But if you want something that is visually stunning and want to be able to run it at more then 10 FPS, then you gonna have to cut some corner. We all know not everyone can afford a brand new pc every 3months to keep up with "Moore's Law" 

I played all type of games, from instance all the way, to small zone, to large zone... and to tell you the truth each time I found a flaw. It's like I can never be happy. Instance you lose on ppl interaction, large zone you have to much ppl interaction, small zone well train and to many ppl.  Wait a sec, I'm totally off topic now :( but my point being, you have to balance the two, the zone type will determine what type of graphic your game will support. Character model is a large one too, I mean, we all want diff type of armor, we all want to be special looking.. and yet we want to have the game run at 1000 FPS, well this can't happen.

I'm starting to believe that yes a physic card would greatly help the gaming industry, you could have the card run most of the partical (sp) effect, cause we all know the most laggy zone in any MMO are those with a lot of partical effect, Fire come to mind.

anyway, that is my $0.02

[Betafreak]Microbe "Marines don't die, they regroup in hell -Tribe" X

I fear that at this point we're arguing about the academic interpretation of a certain game element. As long as everyone understands the same thing, it matters little how we call it.

We can start calling a small zone, that can contain just one raid, a raid zone. The thing is, most raid zones in the most popular games are instanced, aka multiple separated copies of the same zone can exist for each raid group.

We can start calling a bigger area, that can contain an X big amount of people entering (say 1000 people), an area. Now these areas can be seamlessly connected to other areas or a loading screen can separate them. Again, depending on the server load decided by the developers, an area can, in both the seamless and the loading screen options, be instanced. That means that when, say 800 people out of the 1000 limit are in the area, the 801 and more will enter in the new instanced area. If the game behaves smartly, it will keep the people from the same guild, groups, raid groups, declared enemies and people with similar ties in the same instance, until the 1000 limit is reached. If done right and if the limit is big enough, most people won't notice a thing.

We usually call the raid zones instances because 100% of the time, they are. The truth is, any area no matter how big, can be instanced, if it reaches the limit set by the developers. I'm inclined to believe that even games with seamless connections between zones used instances of their starting zones, at least for launch.

Coming back to AoC, since these are the game's boards. We do know for sure that the world areas are separated by loading screens. I have a pretty decent computer so I'll avoid talking about how intrusive the loading screens will be. It's going to be a different deal for different people.

I'll also avoid talking about the Tortage area, since it is the game's starting zone. It also makes sense to make the MMO part of the area instanced when more than X (unknown limit) people are in it. The area was originally built as a single player experience and for that purpose it's huge. Funneling however the whole server through that space is madness to even consider.

Moving now to the mainland and things change drastically. The zones can contain realistically a lot of people. How many I have no idea. Whether the zones will be instanced or what the limits will be is something unknown as well. At this point the developers need to strike the balance. Put too many players in an area with a set amount of quests, a set amount of mobs and a set amount of scenery and they will experience what I did when I played Lineage 2 at launch, there weren't enough damn foxes to kill and leave that area (hehe). So if I wanted to give the best PvE experience for my players, I would instance the zones and keep the limit of players inside low. If I wanted to give the best PvP experience, I would keep the limits high or have no limits at all.

I have absolutely no idea how Funcom will handle the areas, if they will be instanced, what would the upper limits would be before they turn into slide show etc. Hopefully Funcom managed to gather enough data from the tech tests to make the best choices, given the limitiations imposed by their game engine. One thing is certain, that the zones can contain many many more people than a raid group. How many, no idea. I would expect however, given the explanation above, if the zones are instanced (which I don't know at this point), to have different limits between the different kind of servers.