Your post on WoW is completely inaccurate and false.

WoW's poly counts have steadily increased with each major patch and with each new armor release. Not to mention they have graphics settings which allow access to high res textures, anti-aliasing, proper anisotropic filtering, decent view distances, proper lighting effects, and a host of graphical options the user can play with to get the best visual quality their machine can handle. All of which SWTOR does not have.... The world in WoW is low poly, characters depending on settings... are actually decent in the poly count department. There is simply no excuse for the "I will tell you what settings you can use" BS bioware is forcing upon it's playerbase.

If your happy with the muddy textures in SWTOR, by all means enjoy it, if your machine can't handle something better, hey life has priorities and maybe you cant afford a decent gaming rig, big deal. Now unlike yourself, I want the textures they had in beta, that worked amazing on my machine and looked ten fold better. I want anti-aliasing, and graphical options that have been industry standard for going on FIFTEEN GOD DAMN YEARS!!! I understand it's an MMO and they all have their teething problems. I remember WoW being damn near unplayable at launch due to the Nvidia drivers. However with so much to learn and so many steps taken forward in both a programming and technological standpoint it's a sheer disgrace to watch bioware take the industry back ten years... and then have the cojones to tell players it's their computers that cant handle it.

Just an FYI I believe WoW is F2P to level 60....

Originally posted by StSynner

Originally posted by Praetalus

Originally posted by StSynner

Originally posted by MattNe

Its marketing..I mean seriously, have you ever gotten a BigMac that looked as it did on TV?

 

That defense doesn't hold water in a visual medium. 

There is a HUUUUUUUUGE difference in advertising a game that HAS high res functionality on a top tier beast-mode system so you can show off the pretty graphics and advertising a game that has NO high res funcionality in the same manner. This is  called "bait and switch" and IS illegal. If someone were so inclined they could probably get their cash back for false advertisement.

No... this is not the typical "bait and switch". Bait and switch occurs when a consumer is baited to a certain product, and when they go to buy it, they're told it's not available and are pointed to another product. 

 

And they could not get their money back for "false advertisement" by screen shots and videos as the "Final Product may differ". My god people. I love how this happens and everyone all of a sudden knows the law. 

 

Practice more law IMO.

Software companies that initially offer software products or services for free (often under a "Beta" moniker) and at a later point make parts or all of the functionality available in the paid product without communicating that intention from the start are said to employ bait-and-switch tactics.

So they had high res graphical functionality in the FREE open beta. Then when the game went LIVE and people had to PAY for it... they took them out.

I do thank you... you obviously do not. This was not a FREE open beta. This was an INVITATION to a beta event with specifics given to the fact that this was NOT THE FINAL PRODUCT. Any changes made to said product is at the descretion of the company. As you are nothing but a participant, you do not need to be notified of any changes that the company makes. Please show me one advertisment (as no one has been able to to date) That specifically gaurantees you a certain texture quality. You will not find one.

These people complaining should have waited until after release and completed more research on the product they were buying if they're going to complain this much. Had they done this, they would have known as this issue was brought up week one. Instead, they ASSUMED that nothing from beta would change and went out to VOLUNTARILY buy the product. 

In closing... LET THE BUYER BEWARE. 

You are incorrect. 

Originally posted by Forumtalker

Originally posted by Laughing-man

Originally posted by Forumtalker

Not bad your batting .250 listed four items that made WoW great not 1 that you chose to nit pick and derail this thread over.

 

 

Well since YOU derailed the thread and I was responding to it, I'll just reply to your reply.

Its ok to comment on PART of something and not comment on the whole of it.  I was disagreeing with only a part of the statement.  I personally think that the low poly count and the tight play controls really do help WoW a great deal, however I think the whole "the IP helped them" arguement is simply a pile of bull.  Sorry.

 

{mod edit}

My inital post actually was on topic and has been quoted by someone else as being something they agree with, how about you stop personally attacking people and start respecting others?

Or is that simply too much to ask?

:-(

I'm sorry you disagree with me but there is a right way and a wrong way to have a discussion, name calling and rude behavior like what you are doing is simply the wrong way.

Personally I was surprised on how low quality and muddy the player avatars looked in the game, but the character progression was interesting enough to keep me playing. The fact that the personal story is very nice does not exclude the primitive and outdated look of the character avatars, by today's standards. Let alone the complete absense of any form of armor clipping).

I got curious about how such a high profile game could have even worse looking characters than LOTRO, so I did a search on the internet. Well, I was surprised to discover that Bioware didn't include the high resolution textures with the game.

Too bad I suppose since I have a system that can handle anything they could throw at it. I guess now that the novelty of the personal story wore off, I'll move to a more complete MMO, one that will hopefully launch in 2012. Or maybe I'll just revisit one of my older favorites :)

Originally posted by Xasapis

Personally I was surprised on how low quality and muddy the player avatars looked in the game, but the character progression was interesting enough to keep me playing. The fact that the personal story is very nice doesn't mean that the avatars look outdated and primitive by today's standards.

I got curious about high such a high profile game could have even worse looking characters than LOTRO, so I did a search on the internet. Well, I was surprised to discover that Bioware didn't include the high resolution textures with the game.

Too bad I suppose since I have a system that can handle anything they could throw at it. I guess now that the novelty of the personal story wore off, I'll move to a more complete MMO, one that will hopefully launch in 2012. Or maybe I'll just revisit one of my older favorites :)

I'm personally of the school of thought that graphics dont' make a game complete.

I can see what you mean, a lot of other MMOs have been out a long time and have a lot of content because of their shelf life, but can you honestly say any game has launched with more content than this?

No, you can't.

Wow didn't have BGs until half a year after launch...   A lot of the features this game has are ahead of the MMO curve when it comes to MMO lifetime.

I'm rather excited for its prospects for its future.

Originally posted by JeroKane

Something happened when they released the "new" client, that was also suddenly more than 10GB smaller in size, that they suddenly had to remove both HighRes textures as AntiAliasing ! And we will never know the truth!

 

AA wasn't ever activated at the beta .. and the smaller size of the client is easy to explain, they removed a lot .. really a lot of questions ... so all the cutszenes, conversations are gone and thats why we are missing 10 gigs. They not only removed missions, also they reduced some video sequences.

for e.g. Bounty Hunter first time on Dromund Kaas .. the cutszene were reduced .. they removed a szene between a imperial soldier and a citizen, where the soldier hits the citizen in the face .. this szene r removed in the live client

...

sorry bout my english ;)

Originally posted by Laughing-man

...

I'm personally of the school of thought that graphics dont' make a game complete.

I can see what you mean, a lot of other MMOs have been out a long time and have a lot of content because of their shelf life, but can you honestly say any game has launched with more content than this?

No, you can't.

Wow didn't have BGs until half a year after launch...   A lot of the features this game has are ahead of the MMO curve when it comes to MMO lifetime.

I'm rather excited for its prospects for its future.

Well, it's a form of natural progression. Newer games are supposed to look better (the supposedly easy bit) and offer more things (the harder bit) than their older cousins. When this doesn't happen, something has gone wrong somewhere. In this case the game engine is getting the major flack, just like Rift was getting some major heat because the engine didn't run in high enough fps.

This is also a case of having one part of the game looking stunning (the game world looks, unfortunately not the feeling, the world in general feels lifeless and fake, like a painting, not a virtual world) and a part look horrible in comparison (the player avatars) and those two put together make the difference in visual quality even more prominent. Of course for people who don't have big enough monitors (mine is 26") or don't play on big enough resolutions, the differences can be more palatable. But this kind of low quality sticks like a sore thumb, exactly the way the low quality avatars of LOTRO sticked like a sore thumb compared to the stunning visuals of the rest of the game world.

In terms of features, the game is great as long as you are on your personal story. Once this is over, you're stuck again in MMO hell, ie grind the same three warzones or grind the same flashpoints. Spacebar becomes your best friend after a couple flashpoint runs and most world quests. So the only reason to keep on playing this game is to experience all the personal stories, with the major hindrance that you have to go through the same planets with pretty much no variation on all your characters.

To put it bluntly, they are lying.  And here's why....

First, we had the hi rez graphics in beta and it was fine.  

Second, they say it's to protect performance in case too many people are on screen.  Never happens.  Typically as I am out adventuring I only see between 1 to 3 other people, ever.  The only exception to this is if I do a flashpoint.  Then I see my other three friends plus maybe 5 or 6 others standing around by the terminals.  But even if a huge mob of say......10 people decided to get together and crash the server.....they could use their zoning tech.  That was the whole point of carving up the world into little tiny pieces wasn't it?

Third, you are seriously trying to tell me this game is more graphically intense on hardware than Age of Conan or Vanguard?  I don't believe it.  But, if it's true then they picked a horrible piece of crap game engine or they have programmers that really suck.

Originally posted by paterah

Originally posted by Praetalus

Originally posted by Paragus1

Originally posted by Praetalus

You just don't get it. Look at the sub numbers for EQ2... look at the sub numbers for LOTRO. Look at the Sub numbers for Age of Conan..... BTW, all of these games are free to play now. 

 

Now, do me a favor and look at the sub numbers of WoW.... which is not free to play I might add. 

 

You know why WoW is higher? Low poly count. They keep the game low so more people can play it. You may not like it but it's a decision you must make as a developer. You can't understand that because you're looking from your point of view and not taking theirs into account. 

 

If you don't like the decision they have made.. you have every right to leave. I understand the decision and intend to keep playing. Both views are viable. 

 

WoW's high subcriptions are not because of its low polycount.   By that same logic Everquest 1 would have more subs than anything else out there.   All of those other games have serious flaws and it has nothing to do with their visuals.

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge believe that gameplay is far more important than graphics.    They don't make or break a game usually, but between misleading people and then basically telling them thay can't figure out their own graphical settings is silly.

Not at all. Eq1 is an old game that not many new school players know about as WoW brought a lot of current gamers to the market in the first place. Once they were here, EQ1 was too old to draw any interest. What I saying is that by keeping your system requirements low, you have a larger audience, you agree?

 

By having a larger audience, or more people to play the game, you have higher subs. If you don't agree, please explain how WoW has remained at the top of the subs charts when so many other games are free to play?

WoW has better textures than Swtor, this was posted in the swtor forums few weeks ago: 

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r277/UnruheEndlos/TORWOWComparison.jpg

 

Wow...that's kinda sad man. Bioware is really getting slammed for this bullshit. I hope this teaches EA a lesson on why you SHOULN'T rush games. Seriously, while some of the blame rests on Bioware, I guarentee that EA were the ones who forced this out so early. It's just like EA forcing DA2 out early. Fuckin EA.

Originally posted by Terranah

To put it bluntly, they are lying.  And here's why....

 

First, we had the hi rez graphics in beta and it was fine.  

 

Second, they say it's to protect performance in case too many people are on screen.  Never happens.  Typically as I am out adventuring I only see between 1 to 3 other people, ever.  The only exception to this is if I do a flashpoint.  Then I see my other three friends plus maybe 5 or 6 others standing around by the terminals.  But even if a huge mob of say......10 people decided to get together and crash the server.....they could use their zoning tech.  That was the whole point of carving up the world into little tiny pieces wasn't it?

 

Third, you are seriously trying to tell me this game is more graphically intense on hardware than Age of Conan or Vanguard?  I don't believe it.  But, if it's true then they picked a horrible piece of crap game engine or they have programmers that really suck.

 

I messed with my .ini file so without having the best textures, I would at least force anti-aliacing and remove some muddiness from the graphics. What I noticed is that the game anywhere in the world had a X number of fps, but in the imperial station that number was roughly half.

I guess the main reason those textures were cut was because Bioware thought (and probably right) that the imperial station and the Republic equivalent would be a lag fest for a good portion of people, since it probably the only place where the population is not divided into instances.

It's wild guess but I think the "need" that an MMO has for some form of a social hub forced Bioware to remove textures from the entire game. The other probable reason is the open PvP zone of Ilum, but I haven't experienced any population build up, due to the issues with the zone and the open world PvP.

Originally posted by Xasapis

Originally posted by Terranah

To put it bluntly, they are lying.  And here's why....

 

First, we had the hi rez graphics in beta and it was fine.  

 

Second, they say it's to protect performance in case too many people are on screen.  Never happens.  Typically as I am out adventuring I only see between 1 to 3 other people, ever.  The only exception to this is if I do a flashpoint.  Then I see my other three friends plus maybe 5 or 6 others standing around by the terminals.  But even if a huge mob of say......10 people decided to get together and crash the server.....they could use their zoning tech.  That was the whole point of carving up the world into little tiny pieces wasn't it?

 

Third, you are seriously trying to tell me this game is more graphically intense on hardware than Age of Conan or Vanguard?  I don't believe it.  But, if it's true then they picked a horrible piece of crap game engine or they have programmers that really suck.

 

I messed with my .ini file so without having the best textures, I would at least force anti-aliacing and remove some muddiness from the graphics. What I noticed is that the game anywhere in the world had a X number of fps, but in the imperial station that number was roughly half.

I guess the main reason those textures were cut was because Bioware thought (and probably right) that the imperial station and the Republic equivalent would be a lag fest for a good portion of people, since it probably the only place where the population is not divided into intances.

Why would the stations be a lagfest when they are instanced?    They could have a thousand copies of that if they wished.  AA does nothing for muddy, blurry textures.  I already have AA with my graphic card.  AA does not make hi rez textures.

Now if they had hi rez graphics and you go to the station and you are lagging because there is a huge crowd of 10 or 12 people milling aound, you put your settings to medium...or low if you have to.  This is what mmo gamers have always done.  

No, there is something else at play here.  Not sure what it is or if we will ever know.

I know, I just did the best I could with what was offered. AA or the modifications in the .ini file would not fix the missing textures, but it's some sort of improvement.

Also, I need to confirm this but I have the feeling that the station and Ilum PvP open area are not instances. It could be the reason that the 1.2 patch that will supposedly fix the texture issue was announced so fast and is relatively close in terms of time. My guess is that they can safely provide high textures on everything but two zones and will probably do so in the end.

The issue isn't about high or low end systems. It's engine they used to build the game.

Drop the zero and go with the hero...wait, no. don't do that.

---

Originally posted by JeroKane

was an outright insult to our inteligence.
 

---

Who is this "our" supposed to represent?

People without technical background that cannot understand the perplexity of 3D graphics and programming?

I just can believe BW tried to pull a fast one on the community and thought they could get away with it,   Bug my A**.

I hope we're not arguing about them false advertising and I hope the B.D.F knows that some people built computers and bought high end cpus just to experience the high res textures.

But what ever I guess that's justifiable.

I play SWTOR on an old Gateway laptop - 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650 - and have everything at highest settings except for shadows.  (I always turn off / set low shadows.) 

I have no problems with FPS whatsoever.

We'll see if that changes with the 'fidelity' patch.

Originally posted by Terranah

To put it bluntly, they are lying.  And here's why....

 

First, we had the hi rez graphics in beta and it was fine.  

 

Second, they say it's to protect performance in case too many people are on screen.  Never happens.  Typically as I am out adventuring I only see between 1 to 3 other people, ever.  The only exception to this is if I do a flashpoint.  Then I see my other three friends plus maybe 5 or 6 others standing around by the terminals.  But even if a huge mob of say......10 people decided to get together and crash the server.....they could use their zoning tech.  That was the whole point of carving up the world into little tiny pieces wasn't it?

 

Third, you are seriously trying to tell me this game is more graphically intense on hardware than Age of Conan or Vanguard?  I don't believe it.  But, if it's true then they picked a horrible piece of crap game engine or they have programmers that really suck.

 

Actually it wasn't fine, there were quite a few bugs associated with it, which is why they removed it in the first place. At least that's what most were saying on the Beta forum.

Only see 5-6 people ever? 10 at most? Hmm Okay... I'll have to take some screenies this weekend of what I see when I'm actually playing with my guild.

Third, who knows?

Originally posted by voltt

Got a high end computer game runs fine no fps issues.

 

The game looks great haveing a blast playing

 

Who F****** cares about the high res textures, enjoy the f****** game

 

Everyone does.

A lot of the game is cinematic.  When you are forced to look at crappy cinematics your eyes will hurt.

Im honestly scared abou this, i cant do warzones my FPS drop from 50 to 10.

I wonder if i will be able to run the game with those changes...