Here is a video by CaraEmm, the same guy who created that dynamic event video showing that NPCs are not just random quest givers.

This video shows some of the graphic capabilities of the GW2 engine as well as aesthetics and other attention to detail.

Personally, I found ArenaNet's the attention to detail incredible and this video really shows it. The creator of the video really pays attention to tiny details, details that I would otherwise miss, that really do make the game so much more immersive.

It's not the most powerful graphic engine but the attention to detail is amazing. Anyway, enjoy!

Nice video. I told myself going into the BWE that I would make myself spend just as much time looking around and admiring the world as I would playing in it. Sadly I got caught up in the fun of the game and realized that I didn't slow down as I had planned. Good thing someone else took the time to do this because now I, and I am sure others, can see some of the things we missed.

People wo explore the beautifull world of GW2 are rewarded beautifully.

Just sayin

I will say it again, GW2 has bad Graphics, "Awesome bad ass graphics"

I was impressed with a lot of the scenery and art direction, and some of those little things being pointed out, but I was also equally unimpressed with something I was lead to believe to be different before, the NPCs. THis really showcased how much they're like just about every other MMO. Another thing was that damn sword lol it was rather ridiculous.

Overall great world by the looks of it, the giant sprinklers in the background of that plains shot were sweet looking. As was that giant sphere structure in the scene a few shots before. Also liked the idle animation in the first few shots, but hated the running animation of that female.

Another tiny detail I didn't like was the skin of the humans, too Oblivion like for my taste where as the charr look like something from skyrim in comparison. Overall these complaints are rather superficial though, it's the gameplay that really matters, and of course the PVP.

This is awesome touch :), Places in Guild Wars 2 are art.

That was a human?  That looked like a Norn to me.  

Originally posted by ihatepugs

That was a human?  That looked like a Norn to me.  

I'll assume that was toward me as I don't see anyone else mentioning humans in thier posts. The only way I would be able to tell the difference between a human and a norn would be to see the two side by side at least when it comes to females, regardless they both have essentially the same skin tone, which I find to be a huge contrast to the level of detail of the Charr. One flat shade, no muscular tone (as I siad before reminds me of the Oblivion doll look)...

The world is simply gorgeus. Cant believe some ppl say that game is ugly, and where are now all TOR fanboys who said this game looks worse than cartoony plastic that TOR is?

I passed by the Ice bear statue during the Stress Test, and I was entranced by it for a good few minutes. The effect and translucence are really well done, and fit the game like a glove. I am eager to explore other areas of the game.

I also liked very much the environmental sounds in caves. There is a nice depth of echo and a deepness to the sounds that I enjoyed very much. Rock textures are also quite good.

Thanks for the video. Though its no Skyrim in terms of beauty, to me it surpasses MMOs  I thought were beautiful like Lord of the Rings Online, Rift, and Age of Conan....just my opinion..as I know others feel Age of Conan is still #1. Its been a while since I found myself spending hours just looking around admiring the beauty. For me just starting a game, thats a huge incentive to want to see more.

There are some areas where the lower polycount is particularly obvious, but they are few and far between. overall the texture and normal mapping are superb and make for a beautiful world. I also like how more naturally organic everything is, lately there's this aesthetic in fantasy MMOs where everything looks almost like chitin, and I don't get that. Sort of like the Final Fantasy summons from a while ago, with all kinds of extra details that make no sense and don't belong, tons of abstract designs and crap tacked on. I hate that. Overall, GW2 for me has a nice balance of fantasy, style, and realism.

Still wouldn't mind a few additional, less attractive female faces, though.

Thanks for posting this - it illustrates the fact that graphic engine version or number of polygons definitely aren't the only things that define the quality of a game's graphics.

Originally posted by Distopia

Another thing was that damn sword lol it was rather ridiculous.

If it helps, that was a greatsword though. There are normal sized swords aswell.

Originally posted by Somsbal

Originally posted by Distopia

Another thing was that damn sword lol it was rather ridiculous.

If it helps, that was a greatsword though. There are normal sized swords aswell.

Yeah that was the first time I've seen a weapon like that in a GW2 vid. Most weapons I've seen are fairly standard looking (which i prefer in games), I'm used to seeing that in eastern games, not so much in western.

Originally posted by keithian

Thanks for the video. Though its no Skyrim in terms of beauty, to me it surpasses MMOs  I thought were beautiful like Lord of the Rings Online, Rift, and Age of Conan....just my opinion..as I know others feel Age of Conan is still #1. Its been a while since I found myself spending hours just looking around admiring the beauty. For me just starting a game, thats a huge incentive to want to see more.

I'd say IMO enviromentally they surpass AOC and most others, most things I've seen have a level of detail you only get from a handcrafted environment that artists poured their soul into.. I still think AOC has them beat in things like skin, but with that you sacrifice peformance in aspects such as PVP so it's a fair trade off.

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Thanks for posting this - it illustrates the fact that graphic engine version or number of polygons definitely aren't the only things that define the quality of a game's graphics.

That's correct, other aspects such as light effects are of importance too; few people if any have disagreed with that. 

The video shows different forms of light effects such as light going through ice and reflection of light on the floor.

However, that doesn't mean that your  "The best way to judge graphics remains to look at what you see on the screen, and be like "wow, that looks amazing", or "ugh, I don't like that", and that will always be totally subjective" in the other thread is necessarely correct. The word "graphics" is the problem and if you were to use the word "aesthetics" in that sentence, everyone would agree with you. 

The light effects are independent of the art style: it is a technology. 

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Thanks for posting this - it illustrates the fact that graphic engine version or number of polygons definitely aren't the only things that define the quality of a game's graphics.

 

That's correct, other aspects such as light effects are of importance too; few people if any have disagreed with that. 

 

The video shows different forms of light effects such as light going through ice and reflection of light on the floor.

 

However, that doesn't mean that your  "The best way to judge graphics remains to look at what you see on the screen, and be like "wow, that looks amazing", or "ugh, I don't like that", and that will always be totally subjective" in the other thread is necessarely correct. The word "graphics" is the problem and if you were to use the word "aesthetics" in that sentence, everyone would agree with you. 

 

The light effects are independent of the art style: it is a technology. 

I know you are now clutching at straws because you can't admit that what is important is what you see on the screen, and not whatever technology is behind it. That's what the other thread is talking about, if you look the OP and watch the video in it again.

Also, fact is (proven by the video in THIS thread) that ANet managed to do more with a supposedly "dated" DX9 engine than many other MMO developers managed to do with a DX11 using engine.

Graphics are something that regroup both technology (aka the engine) and "aestetics" (aka art), but without art, the best engine will only produce crap, just like you can't pretend being as good as JRR Tolkien just because you have some paper and a pencil to write on it.

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Thanks for posting this - it illustrates the fact that graphic engine version or number of polygons definitely aren't the only things that define the quality of a game's graphics.

 

That's correct, other aspects such as light effects are of importance too; few people if any have disagreed with that. 

 

The video shows different forms of light effects such as light going through ice and reflection of light on the floor.

 

However, that doesn't mean that your  "The best way to judge graphics remains to look at what you see on the screen, and be like "wow, that looks amazing", or "ugh, I don't like that", and that will always be totally subjective" in the other thread is necessarely correct. The word "graphics" is the problem and if you were to use the word "aesthetics" in that sentence, everyone would agree with you. 

 

The light effects are independent of the art style: it is a technology. 

I know you are now clutching at straws because you can't admit that what is important is what you see on the screen, and not whatever technology is behind it. That's what the other thread is talking about, if you look the OP and watch the video in it again.

Also, fact is (proven by the video in THIS thread) that ANet managed to do more with a supposedly "dated" DX9 engine than many other MMO developers managed to do with a DX11 using engine.

Graphics are something that regroup both technology (aka the engine) and "aestetics" (aka art), but without art, the best engine will only produce crap, just like you can't pretend being as good as JRR Tolkien just because you have some paper and a pencil to write on it.

What is important is indeed what you see on the screen, it is just that a very different terminology is used to describe that. and that's where we disagree. You have to realize, that while you think that "graphics" is "what you see on your screen", others think that the word "graphics" is refering to the technology which is a part of what is being used to display "what you see on your screen". The word "aesthetics" of the game is instead used to refer to "what you see on your screen". A choice of terminology which is accentuated by the video in the other thread: to paraphrase them: "graphics serve aesthetics".

The difference in our opinions is not in what is of importance, but the terms used. 

Trying to twist the meaning of the word "graphics" to fit your agenda won't change its real meaning.

The graphics of a game is what you see on the screen, which is the result of the sum of technology, 3D modelling, texture creation, animation and world building.

Otherwise, you eventually talk about "graphic technology".