| Thread (65 posts) | ||
|---|---|---|
|
nomadian 6/29/08 6:10:05 PM
|
||
|
Hard Core Member
Joined: 8/18/05 |
graphics do matter to an extent, through some games have a nice timeless style to them whereby they never date- and some games date pretty quickly. When you play some old games it can be quite painful the graphics. I like playing PS games but there are some that are really ugly now. |
|
| |
||
|
xephonics 6/29/08 6:14:18 PM
|
||
Advanced Member
Joined: 9/13/05 |
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 "america is a killing name / it doesn't feel or discriminate |
||
|
Sovrath 6/29/08 6:26:59 PM
|
||
Elite Member
Joined: 1/06/05 |
Originally posted by joereed1
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.
|
|
| |
||
|
UNATCOII 6/29/08 10:51:19 PM
|
||
|
Apprentice Member
Joined: 3/10/08
MMO doesn''t mean only Groups/Guilds/PvP gaming. |
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. |
|
| |
||
|
Sovrath 6/29/08 11:20:46 PM
|
||
|
Elite Member
Joined: 1/06/05 |
Originally posted by UNATCOII
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. |
|
| |
||
|
Snipan 6/29/08 11:47:41 PM
|
||
|
Hard Core Member
Joined: 2/04/06 |
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. |
|
| |
||
|
UNATCOII 6/30/08 12:10:55 AM
|
||
|
Apprentice Member
Joined: 3/10/08
MMO doesn''t mean only Groups/Guilds/PvP gaming. |
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). |
|
| |
||
|
Sovrath 6/30/08 12:23:08 AM
|
||
|
Elite Member
Joined: 1/06/05 |
Originally posted by UNATCOII | |
