Originally posted by ShakyMo
Not better, but...

I like how the game reminds me of both daoc and coh. I think arenanet took several good features from both those games. It doesnt remind me if wow at all, I don't get the wow comparisons.

If it is not WoW like, it is bad.

If it is WoW like, it's also bad.

If it's a themepark, it's too on rails.

If it's a sandbox, it's too confusing and aimless.

If you sleep, you must die.

If you stay awake, you must die.

Basically put, doomed to fail in the eyes of some people regardless of stance taken.

Ok thanks for letting YOUR PoV know to the world.
We dont share YOUR PoV.

Now go back to some other craptastic mmo you played and let us have all the fun.
As we have insane amounts of fun crafting / pvp / WvW / PvE.

Dont let the door hit you on the way out ! :)

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Oh also, I think tsw has a better gfx engine. Possibly tera too, but I'm only going off videos on that one.

TSW and Tera have a much more complex graphics engine, but they looked a bit.... plastic to me.  Especially TSW.  The animations reminded me of 90's CGI where no one was quite sure how to make all the parts move together realistically.

Originally posted by voltt

sounds like he reviewed the whole game without trying/playing 95% of the game

good on you

+1 ''99%''

Originally posted by Badaboom

Originally posted by donjuanagain

This is better than....

 

Getting kicked in the nuts.

Replace kicked with fondled by scarlet johanson. 

You, my friend, have a very serious problem.

Originally posted by Eir_S

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Oh also, I think tsw has a better gfx engine. Possibly tera too, but I'm only going off videos on that one.

TSW and Tera have a much more complex graphics engine, but they looked a bit.... plastic to me.  Especially TSW.  The animations reminded me of 90's CGI where no one was quite sure how to make all the parts move together realistically.

Nah that was a function of programming not the engine.  AoC had fantastic animations and combat and used the same game engine.  Also the fact that my roomate was able to play it on a 5 year old computer with a gtx260 and the lowest setting looked better and ran better than a lot of other games on high...well thats a good engine.  Also getting whatever their version of WvWvW to work with such high graphic tech as they did was impressive from what i saw... 

Now with GW2...only DX9 of course it should run good on an average system, a new game thats suppose to be AAA or whatever with only dx9 is a shortcut.  I feel that DX11 would have shown the engines flaws.

You can say a lot of negative things about TSW for all i care, not my type of game, but that game engine is fantastic.  But if were going to bash other games here i feel at least that game has substance in it.  comparing TSW to GW2 is like comparing Highlights magazine (anyone remember those?) to a Von Mises book.  

Originally posted by Chieftan

Originally posted by Xten

Originally posted by Eir_S

*looks at post history*

*walks away*

indeed, The dude has posted nothing but hate towards he game long before it was released even and he keeps mentioning how diablo 2 and 3 have more players then any other game, blizzboy.

Wow.

Any other stalkers want to talk about GW2?

lol dont flatter yourself , it took a mere glance at your post history to see.

Originally posted by redman875

Originally posted by Eir_S

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Oh also, I think tsw has a better gfx engine. Possibly tera too, but I'm only going off videos on that one.

TSW and Tera have a much more complex graphics engine, but they looked a bit.... plastic to me.  Especially TSW.  The animations reminded me of 90's CGI where no one was quite sure how to make all the parts move together realistically.

 

Nah that was a function of programming not the engine.  AoC had fantastic animations and combat and used the same game engine.  Also the fact that my roomate was able to play it on a 5 year old computer with a gtx260 and the lowest setting looked better and ran better than a lot of other games on high...well thats a good engine.  Also getting whatever their version of WvWvW to work with such high graphic tech as they did was impressive from what i saw... 

 

Now with GW2...only DX9 of course it should run good on an average system, a new game thats suppose to be AAA or whatever with only dx9 is a shortcut.  I feel that DX11 would have shown the engines flaws.

 

You can say a lot of negative things about TSW for all i care, not my type of game, but that game engine is fantastic.  But if were going to bash other games here i feel at least that game has substance in it.  comparing TSW to GW2 is like comparing Highlights magazine (anyone remember those?) to a Von Mises book.  

 

+1

You guys are absolutely delusional if you think GW2 has good graphics. Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself before posting next time. Bloom and post processing effects are used ad nauseum in this game to disguise the low polygon count and low-res textures.

Check out: TSW (best looking game in the genre currently), Tera, Rift, Lotro, and Age of Conan's Rise of the Godslayer zones. 

Originally posted by Chieftan

quality I'm used to from WOW and TOR

lol

Originally posted by DonVadim

Originally posted by Chieftan

quality I'm used to from WOW and TOR

lol

Ironic isn't it :)

Originally posted by Izik

Originally posted by redman875

Originally posted by Eir_S

  

+1

You guys are absolutely delusional if you think GW2 has good graphics. Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself before posting next time. Bloom and post processing effects are used ad nauseum in this game to disguise the low polygon count and low-res textures.

Check out: TSW (best looking game in the genre currently), Tera, Rift, Lotro, and Age of Conan's Rise of the Godslayer zones. 

Hey, I'm sorry you don't like the graphics of GW2. 

That's fine, because the term "good graphics" is entirey subjective and not in any way quantifyable.

I think GW2's graphics are great, as do a large number of reviewers out there, and not just amateur reviewers either.

But again, it's fine if you don't like them. Just don't act like your opinion is purely objective and that there's some abstract right or wrong answer.

p.s.: I play with bloom and all post-processing turned off. That's not what I'm referring to when i say I think GW2 has good graphics.

Originally posted by Izik

Originally posted by redman875

Originally posted by Eir_S

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Oh also, I think tsw has a better gfx engine. Possibly tera too, but I'm only going off videos on that one.

TSW and Tera have a much more complex graphics engine, but they looked a bit.... plastic to me.  Especially TSW.  The animations reminded me of 90's CGI where no one was quite sure how to make all the parts move together realistically.

 

Nah that was a function of programming not the engine.  AoC had fantastic animations and combat and used the same game engine.  Also the fact that my roomate was able to play it on a 5 year old computer with a gtx260 and the lowest setting looked better and ran better than a lot of other games on high...well thats a good engine.  Also getting whatever their version of WvWvW to work with such high graphic tech as they did was impressive from what i saw... 

 

Now with GW2...only DX9 of course it should run good on an average system, a new game thats suppose to be AAA or whatever with only dx9 is a shortcut.  I feel that DX11 would have shown the engines flaws.

 

You can say a lot of negative things about TSW for all i care, not my type of game, but that game engine is fantastic.  But if were going to bash other games here i feel at least that game has substance in it.  comparing TSW to GW2 is like comparing Highlights magazine (anyone remember those?) to a Von Mises book.  

 

+1

You guys are absolutely delusional if you think GW2 has good graphics. Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself before posting next time. Bloom and post processing effects are used ad nauseum in this game to disguise the low polygon count and low-res textures.

Check out: TSW (best looking game in the genre currently), Tera, Rift, Lotro, and Age of Conan's Rise of the Godslayer zones. 

 None of that matters.

Every technical aspect of computer graphics exists for one, and one purpose only:  To render art.

In the end, the actual art of the game matters WAY more than the technical aspects of the graphics.  And that is why I love the graphics of GW2 so much.  The art is beautiful, unique, and very well fitting for the theme of the game.

I could honestly care less what kind of effects it uses.  All that matters to me is what I see.

Originally posted by Amjoco

Originally posted by tyfon

I don't know why you say the graphics are good, but it might be the style which is easy to make. If it had not been cartoonish style it would have looked absolutely awfull.

AoC from 2008 blows it right out of the water, and the performance is very poor on modern hardware. I got 40ish fps on my gtx 670 and 15-20 in WvWvW. And yes, that was with subsampling off.

It doesn't even support DX10, let alone DX11. I don't know of any other game that have come in 2012 with only DX9 support.

 

I'm not really a graphics whore, but to say that GW2 has a good engine is a lot of baloney.

You should look at your drivers or even your system a little more closely. I run the same GTX 670 and my fps is higher.  edit: I removed the other photo so you could also possibly use the settings I have and it may help your fps. :)

 

Lawl, clicker

Originally posted by Izik

Originally posted by redman875

Originally posted by Eir_S

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Oh also, I think tsw has a better gfx engine. Possibly tera too, but I'm only going off videos on that one.

TSW and Tera have a much more complex graphics engine, but they looked a bit.... plastic to me.  Especially TSW.  The animations reminded me of 90's CGI where no one was quite sure how to make all the parts move together realistically.

 

Nah that was a function of programming not the engine.  AoC had fantastic animations and combat and used the same game engine.  Also the fact that my roomate was able to play it on a 5 year old computer with a gtx260 and the lowest setting looked better and ran better than a lot of other games on high...well thats a good engine.  Also getting whatever their version of WvWvW to work with such high graphic tech as they did was impressive from what i saw... 

 

Now with GW2...only DX9 of course it should run good on an average system, a new game thats suppose to be AAA or whatever with only dx9 is a shortcut.  I feel that DX11 would have shown the engines flaws.

 

You can say a lot of negative things about TSW for all i care, not my type of game, but that game engine is fantastic.  But if were going to bash other games here i feel at least that game has substance in it.  comparing TSW to GW2 is like comparing Highlights magazine (anyone remember those?) to a Von Mises book.  

 

+1

You guys are absolutely delusional if you think GW2 has good graphics. Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself before posting next time. Bloom and post processing effects are used ad nauseum in this game to disguise the low polygon count and low-res textures.

Check out: TSW (best looking game in the genre currently), Tera, Rift, Lotro, and Age of Conan's Rise of the Godslayer zones. 

TSW - best looking game? They used a SSO game - thinks look flat and lifeless and it also looks awful.

Tera is nice but they use fade in the background so it looks MEH. Rift is OK but the engine uses the CPU too much.

GW2 is meant to look like a drawn world - so it does. I like it's looks.

You are the one delusional. Having DX-11 does nothing if your graphics are piss poor like TSW.

Originally posted by botrytis

Originally posted by Izik

Originally posted by redman875

Originally posted by Eir_S

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Oh also, I think tsw has a better gfx engine. Possibly tera too, but I'm only going off videos on that one.

TSW and Tera have a much more complex graphics engine, but they looked a bit.... plastic to me.  Especially TSW.  The animations reminded me of 90's CGI where no one was quite sure how to make all the parts move together realistically.

 

Nah that was a function of programming not the engine.  AoC had fantastic animations and combat and used the same game engine.  Also the fact that my roomate was able to play it on a 5 year old computer with a gtx260 and the lowest setting looked better and ran better than a lot of other games on high...well thats a good engine.  Also getting whatever their version of WvWvW to work with such high graphic tech as they did was impressive from what i saw... 

 

Now with GW2...only DX9 of course it should run good on an average system, a new game thats suppose to be AAA or whatever with only dx9 is a shortcut.  I feel that DX11 would have shown the engines flaws.

 

You can say a lot of negative things about TSW for all i care, not my type of game, but that game engine is fantastic.  But if were going to bash other games here i feel at least that game has substance in it.  comparing TSW to GW2 is like comparing Highlights magazine (anyone remember those?) to a Von Mises book.  

 

+1

You guys are absolutely delusional if you think GW2 has good graphics. Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself before posting next time. Bloom and post processing effects are used ad nauseum in this game to disguise the low polygon count and low-res textures.

Check out: TSW (best looking game in the genre currently), Tera, Rift, Lotro, and Age of Conan's Rise of the Godslayer zones. 

TSW - best looking game? They used a SSO game - thinks look flat and lifeless and it also looks awful.

 

Tera is nice but they use fade in the background so it looks MEH. Rift is OK but the engine uses the CPU too much.

 

GW2 is meant to look like a drawn world - so it does. I like it's looks.

 

You are the one delusional. Having DX-11 does nothing if your graphics are piss poor like TSW.

./facepalm

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/the-secret-world-txaa/

Fanboyism running rampant yet again