"waahhh, why does no one post screenshots anymore or videos, seems fishy to me"

And you guys wonder why

The graphics are actually one of the things I cannot fault in DF, except for the animations. I think they are pretty bad, but the landscapes, and even the charcters, are fine. The draw distances, regardless of what fanboys say, don't appear all that impressive, but the actual look of the world is good.

They are definitely not 1999 graphics, as people say. That was AC1, Rubies of Eventide, Meridian Online, etc. Try to tell me that any of those have graphics comparable to DF.

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by GundamAce

Believe it or not, I'm actually considering switching to Darkfall mainly for the graphics...

Now before you go calling me a rabid fanboi, I'd like to point out that the only game I've found interesting enough to keep playing for any real lenght of time has been UO.

Darkfall may not be as pretty as most of the big names released in the last three years or so, but it's far better than UO by a good margin and in beta the game felt more like the good old UO than the latest version of UO does.

 

I would suggest that you wait a bit. If UO was your game of choice, besides the open FFA PvP, Darkfall doesn't offer much in terms of an RPG.

It's possible that in a few months, when more features are added, the game will become a UO fanboi's dream. However, right now it's pretty much an FPS with terrible animations and some RPG elements.

 

not sure how far back in UO that gundamace is referring; but um...

UO had/has:

-player housing, which is completely customizable

-many different types of mounts

-pets up to some of the dragons

-not only a huge amount of craftables, but many ways to make various magical items (and enhance them).

-treasure hunting (both land and sea)

-different types of ores, hides, and wood for harvesting (can't remember if the different types of wood made it to the normal UO servers)

-fishing, fishing in boats, fishing which brought up sunken treasure and sea monsters

-growing plants + crossbreeding of said plants, along with rare versions

- order vs chaos and, later on, factions (not sure if any of these are still in play)

 

darkfall has all of this?  ALL that UO needs to regain a number of subs, is to get modern movement (wasd and arrow keys) and a 3d client, and possibly some rollback servers (to different expansions).

Well, in order Darkfall has...

1.  Player housing, but only in clan cities and it isn't very customizable at all.

2.  Five different types of mounts.

3.  No pets (though I sure as hell don't miss them)

4.  A very wide assortment of craftables and an enchantment system.

5.  Treasure hunting (At least on land.  Don't know about at sea yet)

6.  Different types of ores at least.  I'll have to check on the wood and the hides.

7.  Fishing (though not on boats and all I've ever caught are fish)

8.  No crossbreeding of plants (Never got into that in UO really.  Not my thing)

9.  Factional wars (I actually like the factional system in Darkfall a lot.  It's one of the areas where this game shines)

Weird right before beta ended I was able to use max settings with Anti aliasing but now it doesn't seem to work.  In town at night it looked so nice with everything maxed out but maybe Im just in a wrong spot cuz when I did it i was running at 2Fps but now im running at just 15fps hm :\.  To bad i saved the screenshot as a jpg. so it reduced quality by alot.

Originally posted by GundamAce

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by GundamAce

Believe it or not, I'm actually considering switching to Darkfall mainly for the graphics...

Now before you go calling me a rabid fanboi, I'd like to point out that the only game I've found interesting enough to keep playing for any real lenght of time has been UO.

Darkfall may not be as pretty as most of the big names released in the last three years or so, but it's far better than UO by a good margin and in beta the game felt more like the good old UO than the latest version of UO does.

 

I would suggest that you wait a bit. If UO was your game of choice, besides the open FFA PvP, Darkfall doesn't offer much in terms of an RPG.

It's possible that in a few months, when more features are added, the game will become a UO fanboi's dream. However, right now it's pretty much an FPS with terrible animations and some RPG elements.

 

not sure how far back in UO that gundamace is referring; but um...

UO had/has:

-player housing, which is completely customizable

-many different types of mounts

-pets up to some of the dragons

-not only a huge amount of craftables, but many ways to make various magical items (and enhance them).

-treasure hunting (both land and sea)

-different types of ores, hides, and wood for harvesting (can't remember if the different types of wood made it to the normal UO servers)

-fishing, fishing in boats, fishing which brought up sunken treasure and sea monsters

-growing plants + crossbreeding of said plants, along with rare versions

- order vs chaos and, later on, factions (not sure if any of these are still in play)

 

darkfall has all of this?  ALL that UO needs to regain a number of subs, is to get modern movement (wasd and arrow keys) and a 3d client, and possibly some rollback servers (to different expansions).

 

Well, in order Darkfall has...

1.  Player housing, but only in clan cities and it isn't very customizable at all.

2.  Five different types of mounts.

3.  No pets (though I sure as hell don't miss them)

4.  A very wide assortment of craftables and an enchantment system.

5.  Treasure hunting (At least on land.  Don't know about at sea yet)

6.  Different types of ores at least.  I'll have to check on the wood and the hides.

7.  Fishing (though not on boats and all I've ever caught are fish)

8.  No crossbreeding of plants (Never got into that in UO really.  Not my thing)

9.  Factional wars (I actually like the factional system in Darkfall a lot.  It's one of the areas where this game shines)

so, essentially from what you've seen, it's UO-lite with a 3d client.

is the treasure hunting like UOs? 

tamer was a viable profession in UO.  don't hate. 

i just grabbed a few items off the top of my head, which make UO rather different from other games.

if you recall, uo had both chaos/order AND the factions.  so you could mix/match the two, iirc, or at least for a time you could.  i don't believe darkfall has that.  also, you couldn't do the "hit friendly so my buddies can gank you cuz we're pussies and can't pvp" crap that darkfall has.

seriously, it's like darkfall built-in griefer friendly game mechanics.

on purpose? or just more incompetency?

I think the textures in the game world were rushed to complete all the scenery and I bet around a year or NA release they'll be able to redo and reapply textures to area's that they went over quickly.

Looks A LOT like TESIII: Morrowind.  Great game, but bad graphics. 

Can't say much about DF gameplay yet.  But I doubt I'll be playing it.

How many people that are slating the graphics have actually played the game for themselves? Videos and screenshots do not do the game justice imo.

Originally posted by Vorret

Originally posted by Grunties

Im not crazy about the first one but the others seem pretty top notch. I would rate them better than WAR and slightly worse (but close) to AoC's, though with the added benefit that you can actually freely navigate through the environment, rather than follow a defined path. So all things considered I think it comes out better.

 

Thanks for pointing out your complete lack of knowledge regarding gfx in a game.

Prove me wrong then, rather than wasting everyones time with your moronic posts that show nothing. AoC is like a movie made entirely with blue screens, with no on site locations. They can put anything they want on the blue screen but its still fake looking. You can always see the difference between a real scene and one with superimposed images surrounding the immediate area. AoC is like that, and so its graphics will never be that great in the grand scheme of things. Distant mountain ranges, dense forests, all just fake 2d images plastered on top of the edge of their small instanced zones to create the illusion that there is actually something there of substance. Fake fake fake. I'd have to take off points for that kind of amauturish work.

Real environment gfx > Fake environment gfx

For that reason it really isn't even that much of an accomplishment to say graphics are almost as good as AoC. Not to mention as someone said, some aspects of graphics are entirely subjective. WAR and WoW definitely seem to have more graphics style than AoC, so are better in that regard. Darkfall seems to have a style too but I really need to see it in game and not just screenshots to see if that style is better than AoC.

Originally posted by GeniusSage

How many people that are slating the graphics have actually played the game for themselves? Videos and screenshots do not do the game justice imo.

^ hit the nail on the head.

the best thing about DF graphics is the *feel* of the world when you are in it. regardless of the crappy animations and mid-range character graphics, the game world *feels* SO much more immersive & realistic than WAR, AoC, WOW etc.

so from an world experience point of view, DF graphics are really great IMO, even if on a purely visual level they fall roughly into the middle of the pack.

High Quality ?

Those screens looks the same as It did in beta, I see no inprovement at all..

Originally posted by Frostbite05

um these graphics aren't much higher than that of DAoC

character graphics are DAOC-ish, though DF has detail specular highlighting that DAOC didn't have.

but it's in the world/enviro graphics whee DF excels.

Originally posted by GeniusSage

How many people that are slating the graphics have actually played the game for themselves? Videos and screenshots do not do the game justice imo.

Actually, it was the other way round for me; seeing all the resized images and videos I thought to myself "these graphics are gonna look great at high definition uncompressed".

Sadly, upon first entering the game I was struck by the mediocrity of the graphics in full force. And I realized that I hadn't been looking at a downgraded 'sneak peek' of the game graphics, but at the actual ingame graphics quality.

To put it simply, Mount & Blade has better quality graphics than DF (both texture-wise and modelling-wise), and that is something I wasn't expecting really...

Originally posted by dark-merlin

I dont have crap to do since I dont have an account so i'm fanboying it up on here while I should be playing

 

Anyway

Hi, a bit off topic i know. but could you either PM me or post what your graphics options are set to nvidia specific settings or ingame settings?

Atm i'm having a pain fiddling with the graphics to make it look gorgeous? (my system can handle it, just too many sliders and numbars for me to deal with)

Originally posted by Galadourn

Originally posted by GeniusSage

How many people that are slating the graphics have actually played the game for themselves? Videos and screenshots do not do the game justice imo.

Actually, it was the other way round for me; seeing all the compressed images and videos I thought to myself "these graphics are gonna look great at high definition uncompressed".

Sadly, upon first entering the game I was struck by the mediocrity of the graphics in full force. And I realized that I hadn't been looking at a downgraded 'sneak peek' of the game graphics, but at the actual ingame graphics quality.

 

To put it simply, Mount & Blade has better quality graphics than DF (both texture-wise and modelling-wise), and that is something I wasn't expecting really...

Oh, fair enough. What system spec? I was seriously impressed with the graphics. I wasn't expecting much from the screenshots, but seeing the world for myself took me by suprise.

Originally posted by GeniusSage

Oh, fair enough. What system spec? I was seriously impressed with the graphics. I wasn't expecting much from the screenshots, but seeing the world for myself took me by suprise.

I run a C2D E8400 3GHz, 2GB DDR-800 and Ati 4850. (XP SP3)

I'm not including the Ati shadow bugs in the overall judgment, since those will be resolved sooner or later.

But widescreen issue is included in the determining factors. 

Texture quality is set to 'default' no matter how you tweak it. Antialiasing is not working.

I don't know the reasons, but Aventurine seems to have halfway completed their graphics engine rushing into release.

There are sliders in the Options that don't do anything, for crying out loud.

Most importantly, No bump mapping on textures (they feel 'flat' and jagged where two planes meet)

For example, this looks 10x better in actual size, than a similarly resized DF image:

I wasn't expecting AoC-level graphics in DF. But failing to reach the M&B threshold was disheartening.

Originally posted by javac

Originally posted by GeniusSage

How many people that are slating the graphics have actually played the game for themselves? Videos and screenshots do not do the game justice imo.

 

^ hit the nail on the head.

 

the best thing about DF graphics is the *feel* of the world when you are in it. regardless of the crappy animations and mid-range character graphics, the game world *feels* SO much more immersive & realistic than WAR, AoC, WOW etc.

 

so from an world experience point of view, DF graphics are really great IMO, even if on a purely visual level they fall roughly into the middle of the pack.

i would have to agree

The game doesn't look bad if nobody moves.

Originally posted by Paragus1

Screens given by the OP are nice (the world not the chars) but this one is simply AWFULL

I think the graphics are nice. The biggest problem might be animations I guess..  All those ppl screaming how crap it looks.. go play AoC if you're so obssessed with good graphics. ==;