The basis for this post stems from the following rating comments from Vestas (emphasis mine) on Wizard101. Please note, this post isn't specific to Wizard101, it just uses it as an example. Also, I'm not trying to "call out" Vestas. He's entitled to his opinion. I just want to discuss the overall topic:

Vestas(posted Sat Nov 22 2008)
Definately sub-par graphics stylized in a WoW fashion at lower details. Like WoW though it runs on anything, even integrated graphics cards. Gameplay is, believe it or not, entertaining and character development is highly customizeable. Relatively simple gameplay based on common trading card game motifs. Nails the mark as an MMO the whole family can enjoy without risking exposure to bad apples on the internet. Targeted for the pre/early teen years it's actually fun for adults too, if not very deep. There are better games out there however few have the parental controls and ease of use for young family members that can have their parents play with them.

Overall, his comments seem positive, but that one line stands out. What does "sup-par graphics" really mean? This statement is both incredibly broad and emphatically negative, but it begs the question "What do players expect in terms of graphics and are their expectations appropriate for the product?" I've seen players post negative comments about the "graphics" for almost every game I've looked at. Frankly, some players seem like graphics snobs. Nothing will ever be good enough for them. 

Personally, I think it's important when reviewing and/or rating a game's graphics to distinguish between style and technology.

Style:

In the case of Wizard101, the style is definitely colorful and "cartoony" as opposed to "realistic", but I consider this to be completely appropriate to both the game and it's audience. As such, I don't consider the graphics style to be "sub-par". Had this same style been applied to WAR, AoC or LotR, then it would be completely inappropriate to those games and their audiences, IMO. All of those titles and their lore demand grittier, more reaslistic graphics (unless you consider the 1977 TV Version of "The Hobbit" to be the quintessential art style for MIddle Earth).

Technology:

There are a lot of factors here, including the engine, is it Open GL or DirectX, shader technologies, specular lighting, shadows, particle effects, textures, etc... Are animations included under the broad category of "graphics"?

In the case of Wizard101, KingsIsle doesn't appear to be using very many high-tech features, but they do make use of particle effects and bloom as well as limited use of specular lighting and shadows. As the rater noted, however, the game runs well on almost any system, which is appropriate for the game's demographic (kids/tweens) who probably don't have high-powered PCs. As such, are the graphics really "sub-par"? Based on what criteria?

That same question, "Based on what criteria?" applies to every other game's graphics. Just scroll through the games in the list and you'll see complaints about each of their "graphics", but very few reasonable discussions on what makes them so "bad".   If a game doesn't use all of the new, cool, "shiny" features available with the latest graphics technology, but still doesn't perform as expected, then I think concerns are justified.  Likewise, personal prefererence towards or against a game's style are justified if they're presented as "opinions", such as "I'm not a big fan of X's graphical style" as opposed to factual statements, such as "X's graphics suck!  They're worse than 1999 EQ graphics!".  The problem, however, is that few people seem to be able to articulate those issues/concerns/opinions well.

~Ripper

Better graphics means better immersion

There are 2 sides to graphics quality, the style which is a personal view, and the technique which is measureable.

Right now there are 3 major graphical engines out there that can be used for MMO's

Project Offset
This is a new engine, very hyped, now owned by Intel and being used in the development in 2 new MMO's as far as I know. You can find examples on the quality this engine can produce on youtube, just search for the name.

Cry Engine 2
Used in the Farcry 2 game, and coming up in Entropia as well. Better looking than my wife... and just as demanding!!

Unreal Engine 3
The next generation of Epic's incredible graphics engine, used by the Stargate MMO developers.

All 3 engines has everything needed to challenge even the best graphics card and thats a problem when it comes to customers, because its only a minority that has these cards. Also buyers wants to use the highest settings or they will feel left behind. This was foreseen by Blizzard, creating a game that used comparable low graphics quality, where Everquest 2 did the opposite, and lost that battle.

In general, the price to develope a good looking game is high, and MMO's in general have never been among the best looking.

I'm not really that picky on graphics. As long as it doesn't give me a headache/motion sickness and cause me to have a seizure or my eyes to burn.

a lot... but is not everything ^^

Originally posted by Inzra

Better graphics means better immersion

Better story/lore means better immersion

Edited: didnt like it bolded

Originally posted by razerblade29

Originally posted by Inzra

Better graphics means better immersion

Better story/lore means better immersion

Edited: didnt like it bolded

I never bother much with the story/lore of any mmo I've played, I find it almost restricting in a way. I'd prefer a game where the players make the story/lore from the launch of the mmo.

So to me, graphics mean more than story/lore.

I have respect for the rp'ers that can rp well, but they don't need story for that either.

I want the graphics to have a personality. The undefinable aspects like style and soul.

Better technology does not always mean better graphics.

touche on the graphics snob there. sometimes im one of them.

graphics could mean immersion but then not entirely. i base my gaming preferences on a lot of different factors like lore and the tendency for grinding.

for me, graphics is more defined by the style rather than the technology. better graphics mean most artsyfartsy stuff in the least technological/system requirements possible.. that would really be impressive.

that's just my opinion though.

Originally posted by Xiaoki

I want the graphics to have a personality. The undefinable aspects like style and soul.

Better technology does not always mean better graphics.

Well put.  Graphics alone will never make or break the game for me.  It's generally how well all the things fit together.  You could have a holodeck from the Star Treck series simulate real life but if everything else is crap then you're not gonna come back.

For me graphics are the number 1 factor when I play a game. Call me shallow but I need my eye candy.

I prefer also good style and talent before tons of polygons. I liked EQ graphics before Luclin. I like WOW graphics in general. I detest low FPS so give me low polygon graphics with a good style.

It could seem strange but i love when graphics are simple but clear, 2d oldchool graphs ftw. Its turning on my imagination i think. :) Gameplay/ Community comes first!

Originally posted by razerblade29

Originally posted by Inzra

Better graphics means better immersion

Better story/lore means better immersion

 

Edited: didnt like it bolded

if i wanted the game to tell me a story id play a single player game where it can be done 100 times better. I want to create my own story when i play a MMO.

but i agree with the person you quoted, the better the graphics means i can get into the world more. I loved AOCs graphics and infact that was the thing keeping me in game for the longest time (cause the rest of the game was bad).

WoW graphics aren't subpar by any means I agree, but if someone was looking for a more serious experience in terms of rpg then they would look elsewhere for example LOTRO and it's fantasy style.

Graphics are sort of there to reflect the kind of experience it is trying to present, as well as do it in a quality and eye-pleasing way. Some games revolve more around pleasing the user with all sorts of eye-effects and with top-notch graphics.

Originally posted by Inzra

Better graphics means better immersion

I find as the graphics get "better" it is much harder to forgive the ugly/poorly created art.  When it is abstracted a bit, it is easier for me to just accept it as part of the game world.  IMO, immersion is overrated.  gameplay > graphics.

being able to tell which way to go, pretty much could be stick figures for all i care

graphics are just the icing on the cake.  without it, its still a tasty cake.  cover it with too much icing and you mask the taste (good or bad) of the actual cake.  too little and you rely on the baker to have made one tasty cake.  cheap icing doesnt look any different from expensive icing but the taste varies considerably.  some people dont mind cheap icing (read WoW) other like expensive icing (read AoC) and other settle for something inbetween (read Darkfall).

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out an observation I made a couple of months ago....

EQ2 and WoW came out at very nearly the same time....    EQ2 had high system requirements, incredibly high settings that even my brand new alienware couldnt manage at the time..... and a huge polygon count.... by all accounts it was technologically advanced and cutting edge.... as good as MMO graphics could get at the time...

In contrast WoW had incredibly low polygon counts... and made up for it with incredibly rich textures and clever design.  At the time I ridiculed WoW and WoW players...   I was a hardcore EQ1 fan so initially I stuck with EQ2.....  6 months later some friend convinced me to try WoW and I played on and off for the next 4 years.

Upon logging back into EQ2 a few months ago I observed that EQ2's graphics look more "dated" to me then WoW's do.....   things just dont mesh together right and yesterdays bleeding edge technology looks like a badly failed attempt at pseudo-realism. 

On the other hand WoW looks like it is supposed to look.... sure you are aware of the low polygon count... and that this is certainly NOT any kind of high technology graphics... but it just looks like I think it was designed to look... 

As far as what I think is best, I'd say LOTRO and Vanguard have the best graphics so far... but LOTRO managed it with far far lower system requirements. 

Originally posted by Mitara

Cry Engine 2
Used in the Farcry 2 game, and coming up in Entropia as well. Better looking than my wife... and just as demanding!!

Don't know where you picked up that information, Farcry 2 is run by the Dunia Engine, while Crysis is run by the CryEngine2.

Now for me, I can put up with lower quality graphics assuming the gameplay is good.  However, when the graphics are bad enough to detract from my immersion-that is, making it feel more like a "game" less like a virtual world, that's where i draw the line.  If character rendering is only good for 10 feet, then quality drops steeply off, that's detracting from the immersion(Perfect World).