Originally posted by erandur

Lotro?! Only AoC can match Lotro's graphics, I suppose you just never downloaded the high quality textures. ;)

 

Not exacly

Lotro has some good landscapes and this is it, Vanguard and even Everquest 2 already have better graphics (this was mentioned even in the Gamezone review)

The main issue in Lotro is the character design, ultra simple in technical graphics and art style (pretty  bad art if you compare with all others Lotr artistic creations).

Artstyle and visuals in Lotro doesnt match, you cant put a goofy character in the middle of a realistic forest/lake, the proof of this is, almost all "great screenshots" of Lotro are only forests and lakes, no characters or dungeons...This is really a shame as there are a lot of good artistic creations from good artists inspired by Tolkien´s work... it is hard to understand why Turbine came up with so bad characters in Lotro as they did a good job with D&D...

Warhammer online could get a bit more of shadding and filters in the graphic settings menu, but the art style is so solid and expressive that made up for it.

When you get games like Age of Conan, Warhammer and even WoW (it is hard for me to say that as I really do not enjoy the art from WoW) you can see a very unique and solid art style where everything matches, from trees to armors... Lotro failed at that.

When you get games like Age of Conan and Everquest 2 you can see ultra realistic animations based on motion capture and a good combination of normal and bump mapping, Lotro also failed at that...

When we realize, Lotro is a simple game in the graphic side, and has a bad artstyle where landscapes ( that does look good ) doesnt match the goofy characters and all the rest, we can see Turbine was not successful creating a solid expressive world as we can see in Warhammer and Age of Conan.

...

Originally posted by tetammoth

How much i try to like this game, whenever i log in i see no Bump Mapping or any other great Grafic effects. My 9600GT runs this games with Max FPS all time which means the Engine is simply some years to old.

 

I was pretty dissapointed after paying 49 Euro (far to much), installing and then watching the grafics of this game 

 

I think that even DAOC has a much better Athmosphere than Warhammer. This game feels cold.

 

The Textures are low-medium quality, theres no Texture setting. Instead high quality Models like Vanguard or AoC has i see horrible WoW grafic again.

 

Grafic is importand to me and Warhammer doesnt deliver good Grafic 

 

p.s i know its all about gameplay for many of you guys, for me too, but i couldnt imagine that the grafics are so extremly bad....

 

 

 

 

 

I don't disagree with you at all that the gfx in WAR are in no way on par with a game like AoC, especially after a game like that adds in DirectX 10.  I guess the only thing I can say is I do enjoy being able to pvp/pve at full speed with no lag issues at all.  AoC is great to look at but very frustrating to play when you get alot of people in a pvp battle because the game lags to hell.  I love great gfx but I will sacrifice some of my taste in pretty pictures for superior performance, especially when it comes to pvp.  At some level I see WAR accomplishing what WoW has done by making the game available to a very large variety of user systems.  WoW's graphics, even for the time when the game was released, were absolutely laughable.  However, their goal was to create something that almost anyone can play even with very old machines.  WAR went the same route.  /shrug

One thing i had a few days ago.

A friend, an avid WoW player, bought WAR to try it out, he wanted something different.

He had a horrid time playing WAR, and complained it kept laggin where as WoW would run fine on his PC.

I asked him when the last time he upgraded his PC was.

He had last upgraded his PC when WoW was released.

Geforce 5 series or perhaps the Geforce 6 if I am recalling things correctly. I am very surprised, and impressed it has lasted this long.

Originally posted by LiquidWolf

One thing i had a few days ago.

A friend, an avid WoW player, bought WAR to try it out, he wanted something different.

He had a horrid time playing WAR, and complained it kept laggin where as WoW would run fine on his PC.

I asked him when the last time he upgraded his PC was.

He had last upgraded his PC when WoW was released.

Geforce 5 series or perhaps the Geforce 6 if I am recalling things correctly. I am very surprised, and impressed it has lasted this long.

I'm not sure what his ram/processor specs are but to still be using a Geforce series 5 or 6 is rough.  The upgrades to gfx card onboard ram speeds alone in the geforce 8 series could make a huge difference in all of his gaming and the 7 or 8 series does not cost all that much.  Less than $100 US?

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Lets get some perspective here.

I in no way am saying War is a bad game, or that the art sucks. They boath have very sound and strong art direction, but AOC wins hands down in the Detail catagory. And its not "Just higher rez textures" working here.

Dude, let me show you some perspective here.

Win hand down in Detail catagory you said? Not even close my friend, not even close.

Originally posted by Oriphus

I don't know..is it just me..WoW is in a different league here...don't put them side by side. As before, not talking about plain simple cartoon characters, its all the animation, the way they interact with the world, how they look when preforming actions on other players..the PvE monsters the same, static, uninteresting..it just seems cheap, shody, basic.

Maybe they are rose tinted specs..but i am still pretty sure my SNES did have better graphics.

I agree there, but its not just war. I like how war looks, I like how lotro looks. I absolutely loved the look of AOC, however none of those games come even close to the fluidity of the nimation WoW has ... after playing Wow, all other games seem so stiff to me. I get used to it, and not notice it after a while, but hats off to wow in that department.

Well the only thing about graphics that annoys me in war is when u se monsters or chars from far away and they move kinda weird (theyl probable fix that ) but other than that i think that war has one of the best graphics of all mmos not good as AoC but the player characters are way better that i dont know Lotr or something and the gameplay wuhu lol and i should know about the graphics i play Crysis warhead on max settings lol

Originally posted by Airwren

Originally posted by LiquidWolf

One thing i had a few days ago.

A friend, an avid WoW player, bought WAR to try it out, he wanted something different.

He had a horrid time playing WAR, and complained it kept laggin where as WoW would run fine on his PC.

I asked him when the last time he upgraded his PC was.

He had last upgraded his PC when WoW was released.

Geforce 5 series or perhaps the Geforce 6 if I am recalling things correctly. I am very surprised, and impressed it has lasted this long.

 

I'm not sure what his ram/processor specs are but to still be using a Geforce series 5 or 6 is rough.  The upgrades to gfx card onboard ram speeds alone in the geforce 8 series could make a huge difference in all of his gaming and the 7 or 8 series does not cost all that much.  Less than $100 US?

I must also say that he doesn't play anything but WoW on his PC, so never bothered to update. I showed him the cost of a few decent video cards and he said he would think about it.
 

He just didn't like the idea of upgrading for a game (Though he bought the whole computer just for WoW)

WAR has bmp mapping. They are just less liberal and more subtle with its use than some games who completely go overboard with it and bump map every damn thing to the point of unbelievability.

LOTRO also uses bmp mapping in subtle ways, leadinigmany to think they dont' even have bmp mapping at all. They do.

graphically, war is up to date. Textures are generally sharp and crisp and the lighting is good as is the atmosphere and zone design themes.

OP may be confusing a preference of art style with technical feat. WAR doesn't try to be technically good graphically. It is up to date. It is the art style that tends to make people think it is old, when it is not.

The textures in high settings look bad, blurry, like made in a lower resolution. Playing at 1920*1200, I understand tho, that people playing at 800x600 might see it crisp, but it looses a lot of quality on the resolution I play.

The character models and faces should be improved, people are looking at their avatars 24/7, landscapes aren't as important and can be kept as they are now, animations could be less massive to improve performance, a BW AOE spell lags the crap outta everyone in a siege, get 10 of them doing the same and you get a slideshow, they could cut from some places to add in others.

Well I did alot of moaning in this thread yeaterday so I better post in here my findings from last night aswell, after reading on these forums about bumping up the AA etc.. outside of the game I have to say I saw a huge improvement and am quite satisfied with the results now, there are still some animations that make my face look like i stuck a lemon whole in my mouth, but overall its looking good and I can finally concentrate on the gameplay alone....

Talking of which, i discovered alchemy (i cant remeber exact name sorry :P) last night and was delighted to see that there is a level of knowledge you have to figure out for your self with what ingredients make what potion...brought me back about 20 years to Elvira mistress of the dark which used to completely baffle me.

There is no excuse for not letting us increase the textures even thou this game is aimed for battles in RvR.

It's just something this odd fanbase has made up to defend the lack of even close to something good looking.

Sure, make a game aimed for lesser computers , that's a good idea obviously :) But let the players that has hardware crank up the graphics as they please.

Even thou the game is NOT aimed for PvE there still is a large chunk of that going on, so why not let those players enjoy that.

This game looks real ugly even on highest possible setting.

/junker

Less graphic intensity is a good thing in a MMO.. if a game requires a state of the art computer to play smoothly it's going to turn off many players from the start a la Vanguard and cause the game to fail. Not having a $2000+ computer shouldn't prevent you from being able to play the latest MMO's competitively. if the graphics were any more intensive, large scale RvR would be unbearable for most PC's, i'm sure Mythic had that in mind when they designed the graphics, and for that reason and others the game is successful and has mass-appeal.. I like the fact that i'm able to play this game without issues on a $700 computer I bought 1-2 years ago, and have no problems at all with the graphics even on the lowest settings.

To be honest you just sound like a spoiled baby who is new to gaming in general..back in the day people were lucky to have 8-bit 2-D graphics on a computer, you should be thankful you're able to play a game this good.

Ok, YOU guys have not been to the real meat of battles when it gets really large with many people on screen. Now, force your card to 16xAA/AF, texture filtering, res on 1800x1600 and join RvR with many people (50+ simulatenously).

It's no lame excuse, not at all. Your rig will stutter, I own a 2 month old watercooled OCed E8400 @3,2 Ghz, brand new GTX280 1gigVRAM, 4 gig DDR1033, newly set up OS and the framerates drop to 34 in battles with 60+ people + sceenery on screen at the above settings. And no, my system does NOT have a hardware problem, I ram the ceiling in about every gfx benchmark there is, you guys have just not taken your game to the test and rolled into massive battles with it.

Stop diffaming people that state the valid argument, this game is as good looking as possible while maintaining a reasonable RvR performance for _every_ system.

M

The performance doesn't scale with the graphic quality, with these textures and polygons the game should run 400vs400 with no lag, but it doesn't.

L2 had way better textures (more crisp and defined) and the polygons were somehow similar. The curtomization was poor though, and that helped performance, customization in WAR isn't that extensive though.

---

Originally posted by Meridion
Ok, YOU guys have not been to the real meat of battles when it gets really large with many people on screen. Now, force your card to 16xAA/AF, texture filtering, res on 1800x1600 and join RvR with many people (50+ simulatenously).
It's no lame excuse, not at all. Your rig will stutter, I own a 2 month old watercooled OCed E8400 @3,2 Ghz, brand new GTX280 1gigVRAM, 4 gig DDR1033, newly set up OS and the framerates drop to 34 in battles with 60+ people + sceenery on screen at the above settings. And no, my system does NOT have a hardware problem, I ram the ceiling in about every gfx benchmark there is, you guys have just not taken your game to the test and rolled into massive battles with it.
Stop diffaming people that state the valid argument, this game is as good looking as possible while maintaining a reasonable RvR performance for _every_ system.
M

---

Sure, I agree, even your computer will bend in such intense battles, but that isn't the issue here at all.

In most games there is sliders that makes the graphics scale for better performance in battle, this is ofcourse in Warhammer's current setup aswell. but

That's also why there is no reason that you won't be able to crank up your graphics to make use of your watercooled comp higher than the current settings in situations where you are NOT fighting 100 players at once, or are you telling me that will never happen in Warhammer ?

The first 15 hours in the game I hardly had any PvP at all, part from some minor fights here and there, and this is what new players are greeted with, ugly bland and poor textures..

And no, this has NOTHING to do with artstyle, It looks just as It should in that department.

/junker

i'm at a loss to what ppl are complaining about seriously the game on my end looks quite good, i am actually surprised  with the Graphics to be honest, i just cant get over how ppl just whine about the Graphics seriously ""AoC graphics are to good my comp runs like crap you guys at Funcom suck balls""

WAR graphics are too bland i can see they use bump mapping Mythic suck Funcom's balls""

Good god people get a grip is there a game out there that you can just accept and say hey this game is good forget about your personal taste when it comes to graphics and stop trying to put ppl off because some minor thing to you is not up to your standards cause that minor thing get's drowned out by a number of other more important factor like  having a great time and gameplay to mention a few, why is it that ppl have nothing better to do then go and look for things to flame about, i can understand if it were some major Flaws but this game was made this way it is not a flaw it is how it was  meant to be, i seriously don't see the logic in some ppl at times.

http://vnboards.ign.com/warhammer_online_age_of_reckoning_general_board/b22997/108327973/p1/

Responce on Umbrals post:

Not exacly

Lotro has some good landscapes and this is it, Vanguard and even Everquest 2 already have better graphics (this was mentioned even in the Gamezone review)

Direct quote from Gamezone:
»The game can’t approach some of the top-end MMOs (like EQII) in terms of graphics, but Turbine did a remarkable job. More character creation/customization in the set-up would have been nice, and there are odd animations at rare times, but generally the environments and combat provides a nice bit of eye candy.«

*And that was when game was published. No lets count some more games that can't match EQ2? Any titles in mind? MMORPG's of course, else we could also count Crysis.

"The main issue in Lotro is the character design, ultra simple in technical graphics and art style (pretty bad art if you compare with all others Lotr artistic creations)."

*So you are graphic designer or what? It's more matter of taste. What is so complex in WAR? Female faces of high elfs? Female faces of dwarfs?

"Artstyle and visuals in Lotro doesnt match, you cant put a goofy character in the middle of a realistic forest/lake, the proof of this is, almost all "great screenshots" of Lotro are only forests and lakes, no characters or dungeons...This is really a shame as there are a lot of good artistic creations from good artists inspired by Tolkien´s work... it is hard to understand why Turbine came up with so bad characters in Lotro as they did a good job with D&D..."
 

*Still, it's a matter of taste. Turbine especially did excellent job with Shire. I do not like male models in LOTRO, they  look  to feminine for an ancient race, that fought Morgoth.

About dungeons, there were not so many dungeons from begining, Great Barrows. But now when Mines of Moria are coming, we see more screenshots of dungeons then open areas.

"Warhammer online could get a bit more of shadding and filters in the graphic settings menu, but the art style is so solid and expressive that made up for it."

Some like it, some dont. 3 distinctive worlds. As much as i like humans vs chaos, i still have hard time to like dwarfs vs. greenskins. I prefer dark elves, just for the looks sake.    

"When you get games like Age of Conan, Warhammer and even WoW (it is hard for me to say that as I really do not enjoy the art from WoW) you can see a very unique and solid art style where everything matches, from trees to armors... Lotro failed at that."
 

*Wrong. Did you notice that all areas that are homes for elves (Duillond, Celondim, Rivendell) have autumn trees that point toward elf passing from MiddleEarth? Impresive Thorin's Hall that gives us small taste how dwarfs live underground under snowy mountains. Annuminas armor, especially medium, with excellent details that looks noble yet made for defence and hiding, like rangers in book, green color dominant. Distinctive Forochel armor, outfits ...
And we will see more in MoM like legendary weapons.

"When you get games like Age of Conan and Everquest 2 you can see ultra realistic animations based on motion capture and a good combination of normal and bump mapping, Lotro also failed at that..."

*You forgot to include WOW and WAR. Maybe couse they might also fail compared to AOC and EQ2. But yet again matter of taste.

"When we realize, Lotro is a simple game in the graphic side, and has a bad artstyle where landscapes ( that does look good ) doesnt match the goofy characters and all the rest, we can see Turbine was not successful creating a solid expressive world as we can see in Warhammer and Age of Conan."
 

*Not simple. Quite opposite, they did make a solid expressive LOTR world, that also present us areas that are not seen in movies but mentioned in books.
 

Originally posted by Ephimero

The textures in high settings look bad, blurry, like made in a lower resolution. Playing at 1920*1200, I understand tho, that people playing at 800x600 might see it crisp, but it looses a lot of quality on the resolution I play.

The character models and faces should be improved, people are looking at their avatars 24/7, landscapes aren't as important and can be kept as they are now, animations could be less massive to improve performance, a BW AOE spell lags the crap outta everyone in a siege, get 10 of them doing the same and you get a slideshow, they could cut from some places to add in others.

Oi,

I'm at 1920 x 1200 too,

Another thing to note, I know there is a difference between shift+Print Screen and Print Screen on the beta client. I have not taken many/any screenshots yet on the disc client yet, but I thought I wanted to point that out.