wasnt AoC a perfect example of how graphics dont mean squat?

gameplay > graphics any day! and WAR has fantastic gameplay (& im not a fanboy, & dont care about lore either, speaking from my PW experience i had a great time in t1 & t2).

there has to be a balance between graphics & preformance in open RvR where there is guna be ALOT of ppl on screen at once, & mythic is already doing better than any one else at walking that tight rope IMO.  anyway WAR graphics looked fine to me, if you want bling go play AoC & enjoy there keep sieges. 

ok.

Originally posted by blisterfist

wasnt AoC a perfect example of how graphics dont mean squat?

gameplay > graphics any day! and WAR has fantastic gameplay (& im not a fanboy, & dont care about lore either, speaking from my PW experience i had a great time in t1 & t2).

there has to be a balance between graphics & preformance in open RvR where there is guna be ALOT of ppl on screen at once, & mythic is already doing better than any one else at walking that tight rope IMO.  anyway WAR graphics looked fine to me, if you want bling go play AoC & enjoy there keep sieges. 

  How about providing specifics instead of opinions? Don't get me wrong: I've preordered WAR and quit AoC, but this really is just opinion #2000000001 without facts to support it.

Ok.

AoC and its half million subs didn't prove anything about graphics. You are correct gameplay always > graphics BUT when the graphics are circa 1998 it is a real kick in the pants in the year 2008.

A good example of how to walk the line would be WoW which has solid gameplay and good graphics. Of course that is almost always in the eye of the beholder but you can't argue with their unique take on quality.

The WAR graphics are just shockingly bad (for the decade we are in). I think the gameplay will win out though as I intend to play it and I am a graphics whore.

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

Originally posted by blisterfist

wasnt AoC a perfect example of how graphics dont mean squat?

gameplay > graphics any day! and WAR has fantastic gameplay (& im not a fanboy, & dont care about lore either, speaking from my PW experience i had a great time in t1 & t2).

there has to be a balance between graphics & preformance in open RvR where there is guna be ALOT of ppl on screen at once, & mythic is already doing better than any one else at walking that tight rope IMO.  anyway WAR graphics looked fine to me, if you want bling go play AoC & enjoy there keep sieges. 

 

  How about providing specifics instead of opinions? Don't get me wrong: I've preordered WAR and quit AoC, but this really is just opinion #2000000001 without facts to support it.

 

Its not a question of facts.
 

if u dont like the graphics or gameplay of WAR & complain, cool your opinion

if you like the gameplay but not the graphics & complain, you've got your priorities round the wrong way.

for sure WAR has average graphics at best, but along with the FREAKIN SWEET gamplay they create a cool world & definitly sucked me in with the atmosphere

Originally posted by blisterfist

Its not a question of facts.
 

if u dont like the graphics or gameplay of WAR & complain, cool your opinion

if you like the gameplay but not the graphics & complain, you've got your priorities round the wrong way.

for sure WAR has average graphics at best, but along with the FREAKIN SWEET gamplay they create a cool world & definitly sucked me in with the atmosphere

 

  Please, read what you wrote and think about it for a second.

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

Originally posted by blisterfist

Its not a question of facts.
 

if u dont like the graphics or gameplay of WAR & complain, cool your opinion

if you like the gameplay but not the graphics & complain, you've got your priorities round the wrong way.

for sure WAR has average graphics at best, but along with the FREAKIN SWEET gamplay they create a cool world & definitly sucked me in with the atmosphere

 

 

  Please, read what you wrote and think about it for a second.

 

are you saying they cant have achieved what i have said with out better graphics?

please explain

I don't want HIGH resolution graphics, I just want the world to be acceptable/good looking. By that I mean the areas look in such a fasion that I don't even think about the graphics. I never thought about graphics in WoW, because the areas looked good. In this game, the darker areas look like dogcrap.

Originally posted by JonnyBigBoss

I don't want HIGH resolution graphics, I just want the world to be acceptable/good looking. By that I mean the areas look in such a fasion that I don't even think about the graphics. I never thought about graphics in WoW, because the areas looked good. In this game, the darker areas look like dogcrap.

i spose it doesnt matter about gameplay (if in fact you do like the WAR gameplay) if you look around & see only dogcrap, lol.

hopefully you'll find a game with as good a gameplay  & good graphics.

personally im to busy stratagising to look at the dogcrap

Originally posted by swaindaddy

AoC and its half million subs didn't prove anything about graphics. You are correct gameplay always > graphics BUT when the graphics are circa 1998 it is a real kick in the pants in the year 2008.

 

A good example of how to walk the line would be WoW which has solid gameplay and good graphics. Of course that is almost always in the eye of the beholder but you can't argue with their unique take on quality.

 

The WAR graphics are just shockingly bad (for the decade we are in). I think the gameplay will win out though as I intend to play it and I am a graphics whore.

i guess that shows how subjective graphics are cos i think WAR graphics are in a different league to WOW

With all this talk about dog crap....i gotta go take a crap now
 

Originally posted by swaindaddy

AoC and its half million subs didn't prove anything about graphics. You are correct gameplay always > graphics BUT when the graphics are circa 1998 it is a real kick in the pants in the year 2008.

 

A good example of how to walk the line would be WoW which has solid gameplay and good graphics. Of course that is almost always in the eye of the beholder but you can't argue with their unique take on quality.

 

The WAR graphics are just shockingly bad (for the decade we are in). I think the gameplay will win out though as I intend to play it and I am a graphics whore.

I seriously dunno what yer on but it must be good stuff.  The graphics in WAR are as good as they can get without frying your computer everytime you get into a fight with more than 5 other players.  A lot of people are going to find themselves having to dumb their graphics settings down as it is, and I'm sure even state of the art computers are going to have moments where they strain under the pressure if they have the graphics settings maxed.   WAR has done a far better job of balancing graphics and performance  than you're giving it credit for.
 

---

Originally posted by swaindaddy
AoC and its half million subs didn't prove anything about graphics. You are correct gameplay always > graphics BUT when the graphics are circa 1998 it is a real kick in the pants in the year 2008.
 
A good example of how to walk the line would be WoW which has solid gameplay and good graphics. Of course that is almost always in the eye of the beholder but you can't argue with their unique take on quality.
 
The WAR graphics are just shockingly bad (for the decade we are in). I think the gameplay will win out though as I intend to play it and I am a graphics whore.

---

WAR graphics are much better than WOW's, not even in the same realm. I assume you didn't turn up the graphics in your control panel and are just judging the game by the low settings from preview weekend and didn't bother to look at any of the better screenshots out there.

Personally I like WAR's graphics better than AOC's, they aren't as high quality but the art is a ton better.

If I really wanted graphics to be a top priority  I'd play a console game or single player game. Sorry for those of you who feel that Mythic should have forsaken content for cinema style graphics. Even AoC devs admitted that there was a lack of content post 50, 30 lvls with inadequate content is a BIG gap if you ask me.

Graphical upgrades can be done with expansions, basic gameplay and engine can not. Therefore (especially at launch) gameplay>graphics.

But as stated this is always the case, a game that's fun, immersive, creative and all that is more fun than one that just focusses on graphics. Having both at the same time would bewonderful, but for RVR performance is more important. If you can't deliver what you're advertising (massive RVR) then you lied and no amount of graphics can save you.

See AoC, and also EVE since those "epic fleet battles" lag "a bit", or rather you time your latency in how many forums you can whore before you can activate a module.

I think the developers have to a good job of explaining in laymans terms how mmogs are developed and where the industry is going and the challenges are.

I am sure there are a lot of mmog players who can be educated and this would serve at least 2 purposes.

1. it would help players understand the difficulty of constantly tweaking a game and introducing meaningful new content that doesnt detract so much from the original game that it makes customers feel like mugs for working towards things to se their relatvie position and effort negated by changes (I like the Tome - it provides an indisputable record of a char achievments and to some extent WOWs armory does a similar thing on a much smaller scale. 

2/  It might help educate people that it is a pice of cake to make a console game with graphics just short of the bleeding edge but it just isnt possible to do that in a MMOG right now and probaly never will be for a mass market MMOG becasue there isnt the computing power and network capacity etc to have so many players occupying the same space with shit hot graphics.

I havent played WAR yet so I dont know what I am going to feel but I trust a lot of the reviewers and the logic of WARs graphics being better than WOW whilst maintaining the gameplay.

I think I understant that sieges and many aspects of RVR in WAR are a challenge to get right if it isnt to become a lagfest.

I definitely know that AoCs instancing and generallack of end game content  is not remotely a compensation for tits, gore and great graphics.

I think your getting art style and graphics mixed up. WAR has graphics on par or better than most of the other mmos out . One example would be if you look at the armor warhammer your character is  wearing each piece of armor where in wow most of your armor is just skinned on top of the player model. The detail on almost everything in warhammer is 2x as much as wow. Al tho there are other mmos with better graphics. That is not what they said that they wanted. They want a game that would run good on a broad range of pc not just top end ones( Its understandable from a business standpoint  if game wont run on someones computer playable they wont buy it). Were in beta still and everything you see from beta you cannot adjust the level of detail to the highest settings.

With that being said if you do not like the game because it is dark , gritty , or you don't like there hair that is another thing. That is your opinion on the artistic style and has nothing to do with graphics. But this is warhammer and that is how the warhammer ip looks (minus the over the top blood and gore that I'm really disappointed warhammer didn't include).

Don't get me wrong i like wow and think  looks good they did a incredible job making a game with a low polygon count look great. But it and most other games do not hold a candle to WAR in technical specs.

The graphics in wow is a lie.  Perception is not reality or is it.

Originally posted by Cochran1

If I really wanted graphics to be a top priority  I'd play a console game or single player game. Sorry for those of you who feel that Mythic should have forsaken content for cinema style graphics. Even AoC devs admitted that there was a lack of content post 50, 30 lvls with inadequate content is a BIG gap if you ask me.

This guy is pretty close on target. IMO graphics should never be top priority in MMO's flasy graphics are for console and few PC games. I dont play MMO's for graphics. I play MMO's for the community aspect and content. For an MMO to have high quality graphics, other aspects of an MMO will fail (content and gameplay). Right now it is just to damn hard for the devs to pull everything off with their budgets. If you ask me good MMO's will always be a few steps back in the graphics department. If you must have your eye candy(top graphics), there will be more MMO's like AoC for you guys, but when its a steaming pile of crap, content, gameplay, and community wise please dont come crying on how bad it is to us.

The kids these days just can not understand the technical aspects vs cost of implementing HQ graphics in a massive world of an MMO. AoC did it by instancing the piss out of everything, which really kills your community, and content. 

Originally posted by Cochran1

Even AoC devs admitted that there was a lack of content post 50, 30 lvls with inadequate content is a BIG gap if you ask me.

It is professional suicide unles your strategy is to sell a load of copies of the game on launch and sod the medium to long term subscription business.

WOW had a degree of a lack of end game content when it was released but for 99% of players this want a problem becasue there was still plenty to do for months in WOW at level 60.    I hit 60 relatively quickly relative to others who started wit hme at launch so I know what I am talking about

The game was substatially stable and there was lots of pve based things to do that required hours / weeks of play.  There was gold to accrue, trade skills to master, quests to complete, reputation to build and alot of socialising, guild building and help to offer lower levels.   If you hadnt rolled on a lame "normal" server there were plenty of members of the opposite faction to hunt down to help your faction maintain some dominance in contested areas too.

  It was a long time before th vast majority had nothing to do at 60 in WOW  if they knew where to look and could adjust their mentality to deal with an endgame scenario versus watching a XP bar go up as your incentive to play.

For AoC to not understand that little content from 50 to 80 was going to kill them is crazy.  For them to not have at tehe very least the level 80 end game content working was crazy.  People could forgive a grind for 30 levels and some bugs, lack of armor variation etc if there was a working endgame with decent siege warfare and some pve content at end game.

Warhammer will have to be careful.   A post saying - look guys the end game is screwed and we are going to fix it but it will take a few months would be preferable to bullshit and knee jerk patches / content that gives people false hope.

A publically stated delay to working end game content at least gives players the opportunity to go away and level some alts or help other players /build guild etc without feeling they are gimping their mains whilst the content is developed and tested properly.