|35 posts found|
5/12/12 4:32:23 AM#1
I can't stress this enough.
The population is demanding better and better graphics in mmo's. This works on single player games but not MMO's. EVERY single player game has loading screens and small zones, yet it's acceptable because it's a single player game. Were not talking about single player games, but MMO's.
Were getting crap mmo's as of late. Why ?.....because you people are demanding better graphics and developers are trying to accommodate.
Would you like proof ?......Funcom is a good exaggerated example, they are a an amplified sample of what all other designers are also trying to do. You can plainly see that a lot of money is put into Age of Conan but it was a released failure. This is because they went full all out graphics. All time and energy went into graphics, and we were given a shell of a game. YOU ASKED FOR THIS !.....This topic is not about Funcom, it's about graphics. If your gonna go off on a rant about Funcom your not getting the point.
It all comes down to this. It's like a time spent slide bar :
Large open world................................................................................/............... Graphics
It all comes down to one side or the other. You can't have both YOU JUST CAN'T. It's only 2012, were not their yet. Sure we had a few that somewhat gave us both like LOTRO and maybe a few others, but for the most part we get 90% crap game play because of graphics.
To make things worst, now developers are adding Tools and gimmicks, and adding Dungeon finders, Dynamic Events, Personal story lines and worst of all cinematic cut scenes. All this takes away from community, and vast open world. It's where the money is going.
Now we have this slide bar :
Cinematic videos............./....................................................................................Large open world
It's all about slide bars. You can't have it all !!!!
5/12/12 4:38:19 AM#2
The Secret World is about to fail because of the fancy crap.
I like Solitaire ok... that is, unless I got someone to play with.
5/12/12 4:52:39 AM#3
Um, so I've been playing TSW all night, and it's fun, then I was thinking about how I've tried SWTOR, TERA and TSW (not GW2 yet) over the past 5 months.
And all those games have really good points, and really, if you combined all four games... it would be amazing.
SWTOR - Character VO
TERA - Graphics/Unreal Engine
TSW - Immersion/Environment/Game Setting
GW2 - WvWvW/Structed PvP/Combat(OR TERA without ani-lock)/Dynamic Events
WoW - RP Features(chat bubbles, environment interaction)
And a mix of character stats and gear progress of, GW2 and TSW (As SWTOR, WoW and TERA are similar)
Now there is a good game. Anyways,
I like them all. They're all fun.
Haven't played other MMOs that much, yet I bet they all have defining moments as well and would mix well too.
5/12/12 4:59:36 AM#4
You missed one. The higher the graphics requirements the fewer the characters and mobs can be in a zone without bogging down. So you can choose higher graphics, a more open world, a more populated world. Pick any two.
"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." ~Greys Law
There is no pie.
5/12/12 5:21:16 AM#5
So what you are basically saying there is that for example Dynamic Events and gameplay are a tradeoff? As games become prettier, the 'worse' they become? I have to disagree as it really is not a simple tradeoff or slider you can make to simplify things. I do however agree that lot of recent games have been strong on graphical department, less so on 'what actually make games fun'- side. While that does hold true to most recent titles it is still over simplifying things and not taking into account the fact that they are actually excluding each other. You can have a pretty MMO that is fun to play, GW2 does that for me. World is huge, even zones feel massive and I don't feel limited in anyway which is not the case for many other titles.
Open world/graphic quality tradeoff is understandable, there was a lenghty post in the forums about it recently. You did not define what is 'gameplay' to you?
5/12/12 6:54:34 AM#6
Originally posted by vee41
I never really did define what game play is to me.
It would be community and open vast world. THIS IS WHAT AN MMO SHOULD BE. Well at least for me, and Many others. People playing together, making their own fun.
Now we have high graphics and toys to assist us, and because of this we have single player action with a little grouping so we can call it an mmo but without a community.
Instanced lobby game, but hay, we have nice graphics in mmo's that only last 30 days.
5/12/12 7:23:42 AM#7
Originally posted by delete5230
Your slide bars would work if, "large open world," was objectively analagous to, "not crap." Unfortunately for your case it is not.
Similarly only if, "Dynamic Events, Personal Story, etc," were objectively analagous to, "crap," would your slide bar bear up to scrutiny. Unfortunately for your case, this is not so.
Now, setting aside what appears to be an attempt to present an image of mathematical objectivity through the use of a number-line like graph, what we are left with, in your position, is:
"I like some game features better than others, but the general 'population' of the MMO genre does not share my preferences. As game developers seem to be catering to the 'demands' of their customer base, which are not in accord with my own preferences, I am upset."
When all has been said and done, more will have been said than done.
5/12/12 7:31:36 AM#8
SWG graphics were adequate for mmo purposes. They allowed us to have an open world, noninstanced houses and player structures to be placed in the world. With todays technology you should be able to make a pretty decent game. At the same time we had a lot of character creation options.
I will stop posting if you stop being an idiot. So if im still posting, I wonder what tha means?
5/12/12 10:48:14 PM#9
OP is dead on. Its a matter of resources, and graphics hogs up devs time and money more than anything. It really doesnt matter what the other stuff in a game is defined as. The more time spent with graphics, the less time with everything else. Most of the other stuff takes only a fraction of the time to develop compared to just upgrading graphics a tiny bit.
The real problem is players dont really know what they want, they scream graphics and get it, then after the shiny wears off, they go to games like WoW. The devs need to just ignore the graphic whine and make a solid game without them. If the gameplay is there, the players will gravitate to the game.
5/12/12 11:10:50 PM#10
I think the point was graphics at the cost of everything else. As in, you lose the options of gameplay for the higher quality graphics.
I agree that a lot of newer MMOs seem to be trying indirectly to avoid massing large amounts of people because the engine or the machines can not handle it and render the game. Even WoW tried to spread people out and get rid of hubs.
Interaction with others is a staple of why people play MMORPGs. The community, good or bad, is a requirement.
Remember when guilds and players in general had places they would "hang out" in MMORPGs?
Remember when you needed something made or a specific buff, you went to certain places to find someone instead of asking on chat channels until someone replies?
How often do you use emotes in current MMORPGs?
SWTOR was one that really drove that home for me. Lack of Guild tools, over use of instancing and load screens, and even the way they designed fleet seemed to be to avoid any congregation of people other than around a GTN. Sure there was huge bars but they didn't seemed to be located or designed for people to use or congregate in. Even the one in the middle of fleet seemed designed to be avoided. No view, circular, and without the ability to really sit.
To call someone a Troll is Trolling in Itself
5/13/12 8:57:34 PM#11
When Everquest 2 came they advertised xxxx hours of actor spoken dialogue, and I was thinking what a damn waste of resources thats not really doing much for a game. Then it turned into xxxx hours of cutscenes, xxxx hours of storyplay, animation for every possible move and position - If only it could replace good gameplay, but it can't it can only supplement it.
So when graphics, story, cutscene, spoken dialouge take up so much of a game budget.....
Not that games will find this truth, because 95% of consumers arent into long lasting gaming experiences, and just like cars... You can make a car last 100 years but it would be stupid, because then you cant sell another for 100 years.
5/14/12 8:19:30 AM#12
I do agree with the OP to a point. Graphics should not get in the way of the RPG and MMO parts of the game, but they need to complement it.
You cannot play a role if you cannot differentiate from the crowd other than name on the screen. Thus avatar graphics are important. Also the world itself must convey the right feeling of the surroundings.
S Graphics YES up to a point. Then it drags the quality down by taking from resources that could be available to other aspects of the game.
5/14/12 8:28:20 AM#13
Totally disaggree, if I wanted only gameplay I would still be subbed to Everquest. Graphics are a huge seller for me, lets take the secret world vs guild wars 2. Guild wars 2 wins purely based on graphics, well and it wins on gameplay. The only exception to me is Tera vs guild wars 2, Tera wins graphically but i cant stand the gameplay.
Graphics are not the only thing but they sure do factor into my decision when buying and playing an mmo. For perspective I am playing Rift currently while waiting for gw2 and diablo 3. Copernicus, wildstar and eq next are on my radar for the next best thing. Hopefully one of them delivers.
"Its better to look ugly and win than pretty and lose"
Hard Core Member
Its better to be quiet and perceived as stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
5/14/12 8:36:51 AM#14
I don't think anyone has something against the advancement of game graphics purely on principle, but when graphics are favored at the expense of everything else, that's the problem we've come to face more and more these days. Also, don't confuse style for sheer graphical power. GW2 and Tera are representing these categories in their own right.
Nature without Technology is little more than animals running about.
5/14/12 8:54:57 AM#15
Valiant effort OP, but I have seen complaints about how bad the graphics are for every game that's been released since I joined these forums. Every - Single - One
There can be (and have been) something said for the aesthetics of a game- it's setting, characters, design etc. and there have been some wonderful (and thought-provoking) discussions about that here.
5/14/12 9:10:51 AM#16
Dont agree with the OP.
Open world games acn have good graphics and good gameplay.
Check out Mortal Online soem areas are done really well and look amazing using the unreal engine..(Sure this has issues but its mainly down to the small dev team)
I am sure archeage will be another really good looking open world game.
The reason the devs are going for smaller zones and so on is because its easier to control and cheaper to run, they also stick to the same old same old themepark mechanics because they know its gonna make them money.
So yes we can have it all its 2012 its about time with had a modern MMORPG with modern grapihcs and awesome gameplay..
5/14/12 10:30:13 AM#17
To be honest, I find this thread and its postings rather funny.
More in the sense of "curious" but rather "laugh out loud, great slapstick gag, let's laugh some more" funny.
Not quite a year ago I was hunting for a laptop to allowq me more design work flexibility. And yeah, if gaming mobility was an option, hey, great boon.
Now, if you look at reviews, especially for the usual suspects of current "graphic chips" in lower cost end laptops, most gaming related/focused reviews will pretty much say "forget it!"
But then I had an eyeopener: one reviewer from some gaming hardware focused website stooped that low to look at a lower cost end laptop in relation to WoW. His words were pretty much "yeah, this laptops will run this class of game just fine, making it perfectly suited for the casual gamer."
Now, there is no point in going into a discussion what a "casual" gamer is as it completely depends on the individual point of view: to some a fulltime Farmville gamer will be nothing but a "casual" gamer as s/he is not willing to invest the money into buying a "real" game, to others a "casual" gamer will be the guy playing on his 5 year old PC just because he won't invest into a better system, to others it will be the guy who only spends some 1-4 hours playing each week despite having a powerful system, etc.
The point is that market for MMOs is rather wide:
Just like you have the kid with his state-of-the-art PC who he got his daddy to buy a new one because the PC that he bought last year just didn't cut it anymore, you will have the guy with his old Win XP PC he's been using to play WoW for the last 7 years.
To which share of the market should game designers cater?
Frankly, when I bought my laptop, I was expecting it to be good for running a classic fav of mine (DAoC) and maybe a bunch of just for the fun F2P Assian MMOs (like SotNW). (Sorry, never cared about WoW.)
So, imagine my surprise when I got the invite for the SWTOR beta, and installing the client found the game to run fairly nice - don't get me wrong, we are not talking 30+ FPS but still 20+ FPS.
Now, imagine my lack of surprise that I again got rather fine 20ish FPS in the GW2 BWE.
But imagine my surprise when I was stuck with a 3-4 FPS slideshow in the TSW beta.
As much fun as I still had in TSW (of course, there are a good many things I think could have done better as far as game content goes), if the game were to fall back to Asian MMO graphic standards (ever played Requiem Online? Those graphics would be perfectly suitable for TSW) it would be a game I would consider buying; alas, as I'm not going to invest into a new gaming laptop (and I gave away my desktop) I will obviously not buy TSW.
But would other people?
I think there is a prime example for investigating this question:
Remember that I said DAoC is a classic favorite of mine? Been that way since I was in closed EU Beta in 2001/2002.
That game did so much right - 3 faction RvR where you actually cared about your factiopn and hated the other two; PvE that made perfect sense as a non-PVP setup; gameplay where it wasn't actually just about "endgame" but rather the experience of progressing your character up; etc. - and that is probably the reason why after 10 years (yes, with some rollercoasting in there) the game is still running, and guess what: not as F2P but still subscription based, with a solid fan base; but even more both oldschool gamers and the gaming industry keep quoting/referring DAoC as a reference, a milestone in MMO history... and keep saying that they would play it again if only the graphics were updated?
If you've seen DAoC's graphics lately, you know they are far from the worst. Of course they are also not highend! ;-)
But obviously, even despite the gameplay that DAoC offered/offers. even despite the fact that with the New Users Journey DAoC is made more accessable to "casual" (read: limited weekly gaming time) players, did the masses now flock back to it?
Nope, again, it's all "outdated graphics"...
So, if YOU are saying that you don't care about graphics, take a spin down memory lane (or explore history) and reactivate your account/sign up for a trial to take DAoC for a spin.
And then come back here and tell us if what gameplay DAoC has to offer is enough, or if you just found the graphics flawed/outdated.
Because, just like any businjess, the gaming industry will try to make the best numbers.
If that means that they can see that only 10% of all the cMMO gamers really crave highend graphics, hey, who knows?
Maybe "okay" graphics with good gameplay will win over "good looking but shallow of brain".
On the other side, if out of these graphic junkies 99% always invest in the latest MMO, while on the other side ou of the remaining 90% of MMO gamers maybe just 1 or 2% would ever buy a new game (not an expension, or play that new F2P game), well, you can guess which is the better market segment...
And also consider how small the segment of subscription paying MMO gamers (outside the classics fanbase i.e. the traditional WoW player) actually is: many MMO gamer will run with some F2P game as their MMO of choice.
For a gaming company to count on making big numbers via their subscription over the long time is - for most parts - highly unrealistic.
Given the retail price of a new MMO game these days, what you are looking at is with each sold unit you'd get the same amount of money as you'd get with 4 months of subscription fees.
Now, consider that most gamers aren't just MMO players, especially if they have access to highend systems, and look at what alternatives there are, well, it'll shift things into a different focus again:
most singleplayer game (or the singleplayer aspect of a game) offers enough content to last you a month (depending on the gamer probably less);
most non-subscription based (and usually non-Massively) multiplayer games or aspect of games are either hit or fail with the gamer: you like it, you will stick with it, for a while; you don't like it, no problem, the next FPS will be released next week.
So, seriously, why should a game publisher expect that WoW killer to happen with their game, that their game will make a huge chunk of those 10+ Mio gamers cancel their WoW subscription and not just buy their game, not just subscribe to their game, but also stick with their game in a year?
The game is "instant gratification" gemtlemen, and ladies! You sell your product but don't really expect people to hold on to it. And what better way to sell something if it's all flash and shine and sparkle?
We all know that the subscription numbers for SWTOR have dropped by about a quarter... and yet, even those $100+ Mio of development costs, if you consider that a SWTOR box sells for $60, that at release already 2 Mio boxes were sold, that over the last 6 months (technically actually just 5 as obviously the initial 30 days are included) there has always been a community of at least 1+ Mio subscibers willing to pay at least $10 per month for playing the game (money depending on subscription model, obviously the longer you commit, the less you pay per month) I would assume that BW could actually confirm that at this time they are close to breaking even. Well, okay, I should say "on the development end", who knows how much went into the marketing and the maintenance/service structure.
But, again, look at where the bigger chunk of money came in in those 6 months: box sales (including digital copies of course) or subscriptions?
Frankly, all those "fantastic new gameplay features", and storyline, and questing system, and WvWvW are really just there to attract the gamer who is not a junkie for the next graphic overkill in a MMO but who may actually look for something new to do as his old game seems a little "flat": if they get you to buy the box, thanks, their job is done.
Anyway, to bring this rant to an end, I'll just say that I love who the OP actually doesn't see the basic flaw in his posting:
He is complaining that games favor either graphics or "tools" over open world and community.
The joke is really, that people praise the sandbox concept as the future for MMOs and not the themepark model.
Well, frankly you can even go sandbox-y in a themepark, it's just down to the community to make things happen!
People crying for open world PvP? Hey, guess what: if all those ganker teams on Tatooine or Alderaan had brought maybe 20, 30 people to the fight instead of 3 or 4, and if on the other hand the other faction had sent in the clowns, some 20 - 30 to watch over the lowbies, well, there would have been your open world PvP, large scale!
So, give a man that is pretty much just beautiful landscape and beautiful characters, oh, yeah, a bunch of PvE monsters so that you don't feel too alone if nobody's around, if there is good enough a community THEY can make this game great! Open world PvP, getting together for a rave, a wedding, any type of community event...
But rather than that the OP seems to expect the game designers to make things happen for him... and then he starts cfdomplaining about features being added for the gamer that are to make the gaming experience "easier", more "fun"... because obviously these features serve the individual gamer rather than the community... *rolls eyes*
Dear OP, I think you just have an issue with things in MMOs not being what YOU want them to be.
Which is perfectly fine, we all have that problem to some degree, I for example see the fairhaired boy of new MMOing (GW2) really just as a shallow, mediocre collection of features that due to the lack of substance to these features - so I'm fighting another 2 server for 2 weeks in WvWvW and then the whole thing gets reset? And my enemies are really nothing different than me being, well, not my color? Fantastic! Let's not mention the quests that will only excite a kindergarden kid (snowball fighting anybody) if at all (who likes to clean a garden?), the fact that you get rewarded for being at the right time and the right place without actually doing something, that "events" are just about giving everybody the chance to experience them and not just the lucky few who happen to be there at that time (remember Henry V's St. Crispen's Day Speech? What if it had been "... And gentlemen in England now-a-bed Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. Though fear not you gentlemen in England now-a-bed, for there shall be a re-run of St. Crispin's Day tomorrow, and every day after, so just come and join us then..."
In short: I don't like things, I will not play the game and find one (maybe old, maybe new) I like to play instead, maybe OP, just maybe you should do the same?
Hard Core Member
5/14/12 10:42:29 AM#18
Originally posted by Caldrin
5/14/12 11:08:06 AM#19
MMOs starting to follow the trend that consoles have been going on since PS2.
interactive movies marketed as games.
watch cut scene press a few buttons for 5 minutes watch another cut scene, rinse repeat.
more money is going into creating visuals for the zombies that watch these "games" than actual game play.
*Everyone dies, not everyone really fights*
5/14/12 2:41:20 PM#20
Totally Agree with the OP.
Part of the problem is that us like players do not understand the technological limitations, we just want it all and witha cherry on the top and then we cry about it when we realise that the game experience is not as good and forget all about the graphics we wanted to begin with.
Many people have said that they liked the Combat mechanics of WoW (PvP), however, they work the way they do because the graphics are lower polycount than most games comming out today, the animations are so fluid and this permits for a fast paced PvP where everyone is aware of what is going on around and what everyone else is doinga nd have the time to react and counter.
When WoW came out it was made for a Single Core Pentium 800 Mhz, this made the game very accessible. And I remember I could play it with 50+ fps when AOC came out , and the latter was unplayable...obviously at that time this is what made me decide not to play AOC...and I am sure many others just did not renew their Sub thereafter for same reasons.
A glitchy MMO is never Fun. Even WAR had same issues..but to a lesser degree, and there is nothing more frustrating than fighting vs Game performance.
In reality it was not the way abilities were or the UI of WoW that made its PvP fun, it was the fact that even in AV with 40 vs 40 character animations and execution of abilities, movement and effects were all playing out so smoothly without Lag to empede one's actions and reactions.
That is what made it fun.
So yes, ia gree that MMO's do not need to have Graphics of the same level as Single Player Games, especially in those that feature some sort of PvP too, Frame rate is very important too, at the same time as being able to see what is going on.
Gameplay > Graphics, when it comes to an MMO IMHO.