Originally posted by BigMango

WAR comes out in 2008 (almost 2009) with 4-5 years old graphics. Period.

..... blablabla

You lost your credibility right there.Period.

I don't know what the problem people are having with graphics..

When I first got into beta, I was on a 4-year old machine. AMD Athlon64 XP +3200 (Single core, 2.2Ghz.. OLD), 2 Gigs of DDR400 Ram, and a Geforce 6600. It was just below minimum specs on the processor side, and the bus and ram were slow, to say nothing of the outdated graphics card. I never had a single crash that wasn't the server going down.  It looked like WoW did. It's what I expected.

I just got a brand new computer before Open Beta started. AMD X2 6000 (3Ghz), 4 Gigs of DDR800, and a Geforce 260 GTX..... The graphics are FREAKIN' AWESOME. Still no crashes, not a single major problem on this machine either.

How anyone can complain about the graphics is beyond me. If you're expecting a brand new game too look brand new, you need a brand new machine. Running a new game on a 4 year old machine will NOT give a game that looks brand new.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Originally posted by pollux667

Originally posted by BigMango

WAR comes out in 2008 (almost 2009) with 4-5 years old graphics. Period.

..... blablabla

 

You lost your credibility right there.Period.

No, even drawing distance is much shorter than several 4 year old games.  You can't see anyting in the distance, it's all grey. Compared to WOW, WAR just has some higher res textures, nothing more. There is no current gen engine feature in WAR.

---

Originally posted by BigMango
 
If you want some boring combat, play WAR AoC combat is fast and furious, with some great and polished animations. WAR combat was OK to me (Witch Elf was fast I liked it), but nothing special...
Yes, what I see in WAR is 4 year old graphics with improved textures. Take WOW, put a little higher res textures, and you have WAR (art is different but still very close). It's just some higher res textures, the game engine isn't using any current gen features.

---

I didn't find AOC combat any faster paced than WAR is the difference I guess. AOC required a lot less thought as it was more limited in abilities and each ability took longer (took roughly 6 seconds to get off a full combo at end level vs 1.4 seconds for most in WAR). Like I said not only was AOC combat nothing special, it was downright terrible. Some poorly implemented console combat system from a single player game.

So WAR is just like WOW only better so it is 4 years old? Um ok. MMORPG games are generally behind the times a bit in general but name one MMORPG that has come out as much as 3 years ago that clearly has better graphics than WAR. I sure can't think of one, the only one I can think of at all is AOC.

No I don't expect a game built around mass PvP to have AOC graphics and I think Funcom might be regretting their choice right now since sieges still play like crap and they lost 90% of their playerbase.

---

Originally posted by BigMango

---

Originally posted by Ender4

AOC is horrible and I mean horrible. The combat system is boring as heck, I grew out of simon says 30 years ago. I have never been more bored of the PvE in a game than I was with AOC by level 40. Seems we just disagree on things and that is fine~.
As for WAR being 4 year old graphics, you are being absurd. The graphics are better than WoW, better than EQ2 and at least in the same realm as LOTRO or Vanguard and in my opinion WAR is better. The only western MMO I've played with clearly better graphics is AOC.

---

If you want some boring combat, play WAR AoC combat is fast and furious, with some great and polished animations. WAR combat was OK to me (Witch Elf was fast I liked it), but nothing special...
Yes, what I see in WAR is 4 year old graphics with improved textures. Take WOW, put a little higher res textures, and you have WAR (art is different but still very close). It's just some higher res textures, the game engine isn't using any current gen features.

---

Do you think if WAR looked like Crysis it would run well? With 10 people on the screen? With 50? How about with 200? How many computers would sustain that? At 1920*1200 resolution? Do you really think everyone has a 4870 X2 with 4GB RAM?

AoC chokes on many peoples systems during a siege battle. And were talking a max of 40 vs 40. WAR will exceed that, significantly. Therefore it CANNOT look like AoC and remain playable. It just wont happen, so keep dreaming.

---

*Annekynn beat me to it*

---

Reasonable minds think alike.

Originally posted by Annekynn

 

 

Do you think if WAR looked like Crysis it would run well? With 10 people on the screen? With 50? How about with 200? How many computers would sustain that? At 1920*1200 resolution? Do you really think everyone has a 4870 X2 with 4GB RAM?

AoC chokes on many peoples systems during a siege battle. And were talking a max of 40 vs 40. WAR will exceed that, significantly. Therefore it CANNOT look like AoC and remain playable. It just wont happen, so keep dreaming.

Sure. But Lineage 2 had several hundred players on the screen 4 years ago. In 2008-2009 I expect something more than "WOW with some higher res textures".

Now, if only gameplay was good. PVE is bland, and rvr is fun for a while, but for how long? That's my opinion of course. Glad you are enjoying it.

---

Originally posted by BigMango

---

Originally posted by Annekynn

Do you think if WAR looked like Crysis it would run well? With 10 people on the screen? With 50? How about with 200? How many computers would sustain that? At 1920*1200 resolution? Do you really think everyone has a 4870 X2 with 4GB RAM?
AoC chokes on many peoples systems during a siege battle. And were talking a max of 40 vs 40. WAR will exceed that, significantly. Therefore it CANNOT look like AoC and remain playable. It just wont happen, so keep dreaming.

---

Sure. But Lineage 2 had several hundred players on the screen 4 years ago. In 2008-2009 I expect something more than "WOW with some higher res textures".
Now, if only gameplay was good. PVE is bland, and rvr is fun for a while, but for how long? That's my opinion of course. Glad you are enjoying it.

---

4 years ago people predominantly didnt game on wide screen monitors. 1920*1200 was still a dream for most. Now for as low as $250 its affordable to all. Problem is the higher the resolution goes, the more horsepower it takes to power that, which a lot of people sadly do NOT have.

So its one thing to make a preety looking game for 1024*768 or 1280*1024 and its another to have that same game run well at 1920*1200. Were talking an increase from 1.3 million pixels to 2.3 million.

Also another to thing to consider is development time. How long was AoC in the kitchen? 5 years. How long was WAR in the kitchen? Far less (3 or so). So yes they could have delayed the game another year or two and put in a DX10 state of the art engine for 10 million more or whatever it costs.

However as AoC and Crysis show, graphics are NOT a guarantee of success. So why take the gamble? Why push the bleeding edge of technology just to have fancy screenshots that get terrible framerates? Its counter intuitive if you intend to create a Fun and Enjoyable experience for All.

As for your opinion of the enjoyment of PvE and RvR, well my opinion is the complete opposite. And I spent thousands of hours playing DAoC and WoW, so im hardly the noob thats seeing this for the first time.

I will try WAR out some more (I have only played a dark elf). What is in your opinions the best looking starting area, so I can roll a new char there.

Originally posted by Annekynn

 

 

4 years ago people predominantly didnt game on wide screen monitors. 1920*1200 was still a dream for most. Now for as low as $250 its affordable to all. Problem is the higher the resolution goes, the more horsepower it takes to power that, which a lot of people sadly do NOT have.

So its one thing to make a preety looking game for 1024*768 or 1280*1024 and its another to have that same game run well at 1920*1200. Were talking an increase from 1.3 million pixels to 2.3 million.

Yes that's a good point. I'm playing in 1280x1024 on a 19" screen. What screen size do you need to see a real improvement with 1920x1200 (considering anti-aliasing helps the lower resolutions a lot)?

I agree w/Faelen.

The world is detailed enough for me, but the character models not so much... Even though NPC's I thought were OK.

Also, some of the animations could be done better.

Originally posted by BigMango

I will try WAR out some more (I have only played a dark elf). What is in your opinions the best looking starting area, so I can roll a new char there.

Definately Chaos and check out the two cities, good stuff.

---

Originally posted by spikers14
I agree w/Faelen.

The world is detailed enough for me, but the character models not so much... Even though NPC's I thought were OK.
Also, some of the animations could be done better.

---

Once again, the game has to be able to handle 100s of these character models moving and fighting at the same time. If you make them too detailed, your framerate will choke and your experience will grind to a very unpleasant halt. Necessary compromise.

---

Originally posted by BigMango

---

Originally posted by Annekynn

4 years ago people predominantly didnt game on wide screen monitors. 1920*1200 was still a dream for most. Now for as low as $250 its affordable to all. Problem is the higher the resolution goes, the more horsepower it takes to power that, which a lot of people sadly do NOT have.
So its one thing to make a preety looking game for 1024*768 or 1280*1024 and its another to have that same game run well at 1920*1200. Were talking an increase from 1.3 million pixels to 2.3 million.

---

Yes that's a good point. I'm playing in 1280x1024 on a 19" screen. What screen size do you need to see a real improvement with 1920x1200 (considering anti-aliasing helps the lower resolutions a lot)?

---

A 23 or 24" widescreen monitor will give you 1920*1200. Widescreen monitors give you more screen space for your interface and a bigger view of the battlefield, mostly to your sides. Makes the games more immersive.

Anti Aliasing and AF help on any screen and should always be turned on.

frankly who gives a damn. if graphics ment shit people wouldnt play DAoC still or diablo 2. a good game will give you the experience no matter what it "looks like" i think the game is fun and its much like WoW but a better WoW which is good...im sorry if you have a super computer and expect anything u watch to be in 1080 what the F ever resolution and super distance whatever. I have a 5 year old machine and it runs it pretty bad but im having fun in all the scenerios and PDQs and stuff. Also this is the OB and they do have som work to do on it a bit. but never the less. the last thing i look in a game is graphics. i look for game play and polish. People crying about graphics and what not is what ruined console games. Game makers are just oogling over graphics and not the game play. Im having fun and so should everyone else that can run the game decently. I love wow and will probably come back for wotlk but i have no intention of smerking WAR away because i cant see goblins 5000 yards away.

Don't have any problems with the game graphics. The graphics looks crisp and very well done.

while i can say i dont mind much about graphic. tho i have high end pc..  game like this looks good on good old pc you have.. it looks decent on something as 17 monitor. but it does look  bit of crap.. on high end pc.. when gamer is used to top line visuals.. on high end monitor..

yes game looks like lotro.. thats the first thought i had. apart it have 1/10 of details lotro have.. man even wow looks better..

The graphics look great to me. I love this game!

Well, I haven't played the game yet, but I see what the issue is from the first two screenshots.

The draw distance is too short.  I don't know if that is the settings that are limited due to OB, or settings you have set in the game options itself.

Either way, it looks pretty poor to me, and that doesn't make me feel good.

Draw distance = the reason everything in the nr distance is greyed out.  All that should be in decent detail, although obviously not as clear/sharp as the foreground.

I'll know more if I ever getting ****ING GOA to send my email activation - Jesus .

Personally for my enjoyment gameplay is king.  Graphics are nice, but I certainly would not buy a game with great graphics and poorly executed gameplay.  On the other hand if the graphics are run of the mill yet acceptable, and the game play is fun, that is the game I'm going to be buying and playing.  I don't mind games like Crysis, I think for my enjoyment they did a serviceable job with gameplay and exceptional graphics.  I do think that WAR will be a game I spend more hours playing than Crysis though.  In that case, as far as my tastes are concerned, Mythic has made the right decisions in game design between massive combat performance, and graphical acceptability.  I can understand why other people might not agree with the choices.  However, WAR is what it is, like it or not.  Those people who don't like it will have to get past their issues with WAR, and move on to play something which suits them better. 

I hope this helps.