Originally posted by Smikis

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..

I have a decent rig and I think the game looks absolutely fine and sets the mood very well. I've played Crisis on this rig on high to the end, played AoC fine on max settings and many other games. So just because people have a high end rig doesn't mean it looks like instant crap.

I went into my Nvidia control panel added the WAR.exe and forced AFx16 and AAx4, the game looks awesome if you do this.

Originally posted by mcharj11

In my opinion the game looks fantastic, slightly better than Lotro and if i remember there was a lot people creaming over it's graphics. As long as it looks like Warhammer, who cares?...

I like WAR but to say the graphic are better the LOTRO is a joke.

Originally posted by Malall

Originally posted by mcharj11

In my opinion the game looks fantastic, slightly better than Lotro and if i remember there was a lot people creaming over it's graphics. As long as it looks like Warhammer, who cares?...

 

I like WAR but to say the graphic are better the LOTRO is a joke.

Like i said WAR doesn't have the full list of graphics options available yet so i forced the AA and AF in the control panel, and to me it does look slightly better than LoTRO. The animations are better, the character graphics and models are better and the armour actually looks like armour in WAR, in LoTRO the armour looks like it's stretched over the character. LoTRO though does have absolutely fantastic water graphics.

I also much prefer the art direction WAR to LoTRO.

The OP is absolutely correct.  Most people don't really understand the technical limitations involved with graphics.  They simply see games like Crysis and then wonder why every game doesn't look like that. 

One thing that has been discussed is how graphics can't be as stunning as AoC if you want to get dozens or even hundreds of players fighting on the screen without fps dropping into the single digits.  (AoC has learned that themselves.)

Something that has not been mentioned is a secondary element:  WAR is built around lots and lots of PvP.  That means that it needs lots of people playing in order to be successful, and that in turn requires that minimum system requirements be relatively low in order to allow the largest possible audience to get into the game.

If Mythic had tried to build WAR with AoC's graphical impressiveness, they would have created a game that couldn't sustain large enough populations to keep the PvP fun.  The game would end up struggling.  In the end, they were wise to set the bar above WoW while still keeping the minimum system requirements as low as possible.

WAR should rename to WoW2 and the gfx are not even impressive or much better than a 5 year old game. SAD!

Originally posted by hitec7

WAR should rename to WoW2 and the gfx are not even impressive or much better than a 5 year old game. SAD!

Yep. . .you are exactly right.

Bah cant the kiddies stop comparing the only mmo they have played with everything that is new... it's getting so so so old :/  soon probably older then most the people doing it.

Originally posted by mcharj11

I went into my Nvidia control panel added the WAR.exe and forced AFx16 and AAx4, the game looks awesome if you do this.

Define awesome. I have the game forced to 16x AF and 8xAA. still nothing spectacular that you claim.

Short answer? No.

Long answer? Nooooooooooooooo.

For every person you make happy, you piss off two, one who liked the status quo and one who wanted the changes to be done differently.

You can barely ever completely satisfy somebody, especially a gamer, especially an MMO player.

The graphics are not as bad as people are making out (especially since a large percent of them came from WoW of all games). They're not the greatest either, but WAR's supposed (I haven't played the game much yet, waiting till the 18, even if I have early access :P) stability will make up for it. A game heavily based on large-scale PvP needs to find a good balance between Graphics, Stability and Performance... from the look of it, WAR has succeeded.

 I wouldn't say ugly - I would say outdated. Other games have proven you can go low end on the poly count and still have a great atmosphere.

Sadly, WAR does not create a great atmosphere with their look. It is almost like they merged DaoC and WoW graphics and then turned down the shiny.

I always argue toward gameplay over look but - seriously Mythic, it is 2008.

Originally posted by swaindaddy

 I wouldn't say ugly - I would say outdated. Other games have proven you can go low end on the poly count and still have a great atmosphere.

Sadly, WAR does not create a great atmosphere with their look. It is almost like they merged DaoC and WoW graphics and then turned down the shiny.

I always argue toward gameplay over look but - seriously Mythic, it is 2008.

You might like Age of Conan... ;)

Originally posted by heimer1973

Originally posted by Belko

The retail client will probably contain higher resolution textures and more advanced lighting effects. AA and AF isn't in beta as well.

 

Ppl keep saying this but I cant find any official word on it ..... can someone confirm this ??

I.E point me to a link besides ppl in forums saying it ??

 

I hope its true ofc

As far as I know this is something that was made up on the interwebz and spread like wildfire.  I got my CE in the mail last night and as a matter of fact it wont even patch.  The only thing that has been mentioned are improving in game settings such as draw distance and adding AA and AF settings for the client.

Originally posted by TurnX

Honestly the bottom line is people need something and will find something to complain about. For me personally the graphics are fine, and I could really care less about how it looks as long as I am having fun. For others if the game doesn't look like Crysis on max then they think it sucks. To each thier own.

Excellent post:

To me the graphics in War are great, they did a very good job of capturing the look and feel of the Wahammer game while still keeping fram rates high. I would rather be able to run 50fps with good graphics than 10 fps with great graphics (VIDEO LAG=DEATH in PVP).
 

I personally love playing Crysis on max but with those kinds of graphics performance becomes a serious issue with more than a few people on screen. Look at AoC with 20 people fighting at once and the spell effects going off, its worse that slow motion replay till some people die and my pc can run Crysis at 33fps with max settings.

Originally posted by Annekynn

If the graphics are highend and complex, what do people complain about?

- "I cant enter the capital city, I get like 2 frames"
- "Damn necros and all their pets, every time im close to one my framerate goes to hell!"
- "I cant target him, im getting like no frames with all these people around"

This endless whining id hear almost daily in AoC. Yes the game was very preety and graphically advanced, but what effect would you have on a large amount of people when the action got complex? Their frame rates would tank and they would become ineffective and unresponsive.

So do people REALLY expect to have the majority of people be able to have a playable game when there are 100+ people in your immediate proximity? The RvR battles in WAR get huge. There are no artificial limitations like in AoC. So if you get 200 people showing up at your keep to break down the doors, do you think it will be fun if youre getting 1 FPS?

Mythic chose gameplay over graphics, THANK GOD. If graphics were king, games like AoC and Crysis would be ruling supreme and scraping everyone else from the bottom of their boots. And a game like WoW, with cartoony pastel color graphics with trees that looked like squares would have bombed within 6 months. WoW is complete proof that gameplay is more important than graphics, and like it or not, a smart developer will invest more resources into gameplay than graphics. Funcom did it backwards, and ask anyone who has played the endgame, fancy graphics mean nothing if you have a severe lack of content.

Therefore with WAR, we are stuck with "ugly graphics" such as the pics I took yesterday:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd146/Annekynn/annex01.jpg
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd146/Annekynn/annex02.jpg
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd146/Annekynn/annex03.jpg

If you think thats ugly, well then, go play AoC or Crysis. You have a choice, WAR isnt the only game in town.

There is a diffrence between bad graphics and simplistic graphics.

WoW = incredibly well done simplistic graphical style

WAR = Very shoddy attempt at simplistic graphics. Stuff don't really meld together in a nice looking fashion. To me it looks alike they had some rather talented artists mixed up with som rather bad/lazy ones.

I can except the bland landscapes as a sacrifice for mass PvP.  What's confusing is how bad the animations are.  The running annimations for all the Desto. chars I played was very bad.  The spell  and melee animations were really weak too.

As I said, having average graphics is a fair price for working mass PvP, what is annoying is all the fanbois who are trying to convince people that the graphics are "amazing" or "better than wow."

Originally posted by Cbdragon1

I can except the bland landscapes as a sacrifice for mass PvP.  What's confusing is how bad the animations are.  The running annimations for all the Desto. chars I played was very bad.  The spell  and melee animations were really weak too.

As I said, having average graphics is a fair price for working mass PvP, what is annoying is all the fanbois who are trying to convince people that the graphics are "amazing" or "better than wow."

Indeed. Mythic seems to have put all energy in the gameplay. So be it. Game's fun in the beginning (playin the 5-Bucks-EU-Preoder to have a look).

But the whole presentation - gfx, artwork, animations, soundeffects, music, lore - is outdated and mediocre at best. Besides Mass-PVP and PQs there is nothing special that makes a difference between WAR and those who were smart enough to copy WAR's (Tabletop) look years before.

Clunky elves, dwarves & orcs.  A polished game for average-joe-fantasy-lover.  But not thaaat special.

Originally posted by barmbek76

Originally posted by Cbdragon1

I can except the bland landscapes as a sacrifice for mass PvP.  What's confusing is how bad the animations are.  The running annimations for all the Desto. chars I played was very bad.  The spell  and melee animations were really weak too.

As I said, having average graphics is a fair price for working mass PvP, what is annoying is all the fanbois who are trying to convince people that the graphics are "amazing" or "better than wow."

 

Indeed. Mythic seems to have put all energy in the gameplay. So be it. Game's fun in the beginning (playin the 5-Bucks-EU-Preoder to have a look).

But the whole presentation - gfx, artwork, animations, soundeffects, music, lore - is outdated and mediocre at best. Besides Mass-PVP and PQs there is nothing special that makes a difference between WAR and those who were smart enough to copy WAR's (Tabletop) look years before.

Clunky elves, dwarves & orcs.  A polished game for average-joe-fantasy-lover.  But not thaaat special.

I agree, but if I do play any mmo coming out, ot'll be for the story, and the gameplay, graphics arent as important- so long as they are up to standards with the rest of the gen, hell i mean even gw is fine. Im more about what makes it different, pvp, and gameplay.

Originally posted by Annekynn

If the graphics are highend and complex, what do people complain about?

- "I cant enter the capital city, I get like 2 frames"
- "Damn necros and all their pets, every time im close to one my framerate goes to hell!"
- "I cant target him, im getting like no frames with all these people around"

This endless whining id hear almost daily in AoC. Yes the game was very preety and graphically advanced, but what effect would you have on a large amount of people when the action got complex? Their frame rates would tank and they would become ineffective and unresponsive.

So do people REALLY expect to have the majority of people be able to have a playable game when there are 100+ people in your immediate proximity? The RvR battles in WAR get huge. There are no artificial limitations like in AoC. So if you get 200 people showing up at your keep to break down the doors, do you think it will be fun if youre getting 1 FPS?

Mythic chose gameplay over graphics, THANK GOD. If graphics were king, games like AoC and Crysis would be ruling supreme and scraping everyone else from the bottom of their boots. And a game like WoW, with cartoony pastel color graphics with trees that looked like squares would have bombed within 6 months. WoW is complete proof that gameplay is more important than graphics, and like it or not, a smart developer will invest more resources into gameplay than graphics. Funcom did it backwards, and ask anyone who has played the endgame, fancy graphics mean nothing if you have a severe lack of content.

Therefore with WAR, we are stuck with "ugly graphics" such as the pics I took yesterday:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd146/Annekynn/annex01.jpg
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd146/Annekynn/annex02.jpg
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd146/Annekynn/annex03.jpg

If you think thats ugly, well then, go play AoC or Crysis. You have a choice, WAR isnt the only game in town.

It looks like a well designed world.

Been playing the past couple hours... i'm no master of screenshotting but.

img.photobucket.com/albums/v153/Bladin/BladinM_001.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v153/Bladin/GallickM_000.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v153/Bladin/BladinM_003.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v153/Bladin/GallickM_001.jpg

I'm not even running on that uber of a computer.

The game looks gorgeous.  The areas look alive, and great, the characters look fantastic.  And it has a nice feel.

I'm not gonna say it's better then any other game.  I don't have to.

If you honestly can even say its anything close to wow, or that it's drastically less then AoC.  Then your downright foolish, a troll, and need to gtfo off the forums.  You can not like the style.  That's fine.  But don't try to bring in facts of it's quality when your so full of crap.

And lotro?  Seriously, decent environments(if a bit generic).  But TERRIBLE models, and HORRIBLE armor appearances.

img140.imageshack.us/img140/8995/123yn0.jpg

img363.imageshack.us/img363/329/1234xu9.jpg

Dont blame de game if ur computer cant do this...

Looks fine

WAR has a good blend when it comes to graphics and how much that will compromise the gameplay

Having seen realsitic and high textures boobs in AOC moving at 2 frames per second I prefer to go with WAR which has no lag no FPS drop no stuttering even with a full battle orgy ate its best

The only part of the graphics is in the character selection screen

"And lotro? Seriously, decent environments(if a bit generic). But TERRIBLE models, and HORRIBLE armor appearances." - Bladin, don't smoke to much while playing, hurts your eyes.

Awaiting my new 4870 and my WAR CE copy tomorrow. From the screenshots, graphics looks good.

But if gamplay is as good as many say, I don't mind if it looks worse then Lotro or AOC.

---

Originally posted by hitec7
WAR should rename to WoW2 and the gfx are not even impressive or much better than a 5 year old game. SAD!

---

You just proved OP's point. Bump for the truth.