Will GW2 graphics hold up against the next-gen games? [Archive]

sumrtym

15-04-2008, 18:55

Just saw the trailer for a new MMORPG due out next year. While a trailer, and not probable actual gameplay (much as "trailers" for GW have been too), it should be noted that it is using Unreal Tournament 3 engine for the game for increased realism of creatures / characters and movements.

http://www.mortalonline.com/

So, my question is, will GW2 graphics holdup to the next generation of online games? What do you think?

Voltaire

15-04-2008, 18:59

We haven't even seen GW2 concept art, much less a screenshot or a video. Who's to know?

Akirai Annuvil

15-04-2008, 19:01

Why wouldn't it?

Why would it?

Mebbe cuz we dunt knooooow!

shawn

15-04-2008, 19:11

That wasn't really that impressive, even Crysis (which has been out since Nov 07) has better graphics.. >_>

Martian Tristar

15-04-2008, 19:14

uhm, isn't guildwars 2 a next generation online game itself?

raspberry jam

15-04-2008, 19:16

Who the **** cares? Graphics matter for maybe the first two days of playing a game. After that, it's the gameplay that matters.

thulsey

15-04-2008, 19:21

Who the **** cares? Graphics matter for maybe the first two days of playing a game. After that, it's the gameplay that matters.

That's why they're remaking Chess 2, Go Fish 2, Monopoly 2 and all those other classic boardgames I played as a... wait. :huh:

Graphics in GW played a huge part in keeping me logging back in, exploring, etc. I can honestly say that the improvements to the graphics engine that have gone on continuously since the game was released had a huge impact on my experience, and I'm sure many others' as well.

Granted, it didn't do a whole heckuvalot in the pvp area of the game for me.

'Aw, I got knocked down. But that animation sure rocked my socks!'

aslani

15-04-2008, 19:22

Graphics is the last thing in game development and I'm sure Anet will use the lastest technology when it comes to graphics. Also they've promised not to require high end computer specs from one of the interviews IIRC.

Akirai Annuvil

15-04-2008, 19:23

'Aw, I got knocked down. But that animation sure rocked my socks!'
Literally.

FourthVariety

15-04-2008, 19:28

The challenge of competing with up to date console graphics lies not in competing with polygons and textures. All the other aspects are more important. Camera angles, cutting, editing, even writing contributes more to a good presentation than licensing the Unreal 3 engine. New animation and mocap techniques also play a role. Walking the same way for hundreds of hours is definitely not up to date.

Judging from the trailer they don't have much of a game yet. So I ride through the world on a mount. WoW, but if I wanted that, I played some Barbie Pony game right now. Same goes for waving a torch and stumbling forward, that's the way I imagined 21st century entertainment. You like that, then you will love the Graveyard. (http://tale-of-tales.com/TheGraveyard/) I can also not remember how often I heard the promise of somebody delivering an action style combat mechanic where skill mattered. To pull that off, the devs better have a good fighting game in there somewhere, but I doubt that. I rather buy Soul Calibur 4 and skip the sad attempts at overpriced Action-MMOs.

But don't take my word for it, look at the poll the site has. 53% of all people want to know about the gameplay. Only 10% want to know about the graphics. Since the trailer is 100% graphic whoring, I'd say they are missing the point entirely atm.

sumrtym

15-04-2008, 19:43

Walking the same way for hundreds of hours is definitely not up to date.
Like we do now in GW....

Judging from the trailer they don't have much of a game yet. So I ride through the world on a mount. WoW, but if I wanted that, I played some Barbie Pony game right now.
What is the point of that tirade, other than they will have something that's been asked for in GW before? Bitter much? This wasn't posted as a "leave GW for THIS game" thread, just about graphics.

Same goes for waving a torch and stumbling forward, that's the way I imagined 21st century entertainment. You like that, then you will love the Graveyard. (http://tale-of-tales.com/TheGraveyard/)
Yes, you're right. That lighting for that and movement looked like crap. <can you feel the sarcasm>

Since the trailer is 100% graphic whoring, I'd say they are missing the point entirely atm.
They aren't the only ones.

Ritsinwamo

15-04-2008, 19:54

That wasn't really that impressive, even Crysis (which has been out since Nov 07) has better graphics.. >_>

Crysis is ahead of it's time, even with the new GPUx2=SLI times 4 crysis still owns.......comparing crysis to what we have now on the market is unfair to those games because they use Current-slight ahead technology, while Crysis seems to be 3-4 generations ahead of what we have now.

oles

15-04-2008, 20:03

Crysis is ahead of it's time, even with the new GPUx2=SLI times 4 crysis still owns.......comparing crysis to what we have now on the market is unfair to those games because they use Current-slight ahead technology, while Crysis seems to be 3-4 generations ahead of what we have now.

That's not true. Crysis is not 3-4 generation ahead. It's exactly the current generation. Except that it combines pretty much all the techniques known to man and cramps a lot of detail in small spaces.

An comparable engine is Stalker: CS. We'll see how it runs when it's out this summer. Original Stalker:SoC had nearly as good an engine, just not as much detail in one place, and not as sophisticated physics engine (hence it ran a lot better).

As far as GW2 goes, who knows. It probably won't be next gen though, since a lot of people don't have the computers to run next gen.

raspberry jam

15-04-2008, 20:05

That's why they're remaking Chess 2, Go Fish 2, Monopoly 2 and all those other classic boardgames I played as a... wait. :huh:Chess is one of the most re-made game in history, as board game and as computer game, at least in the European/North American part of the world. But go on.

Graphics in GW played a huge part in keeping me logging back in, exploring, etc. I can honestly say that the improvements to the graphics engine that have gone on continuously since the game was released had a huge impact on my experience, and I'm sure many others' as well.So which is the best game? Which of these two still have people playing it?

A. Star Control 2

B. Far Cry

Heavens Angel

15-04-2008, 20:07

will world of warcraft hold up against next gen games yes

so why carnt guild wars

FourthVariety

15-04-2008, 20:18

Like we do now in GW....
Who said GW was up to date? Tons of presentation technologies found their way into high end games since the release of GW.

What is the point of that tirade, other than they will have something that's been asked for in GW before? Bitter much? This wasn't posted as a "leave GW for THIS game" thread, just about graphics.
Mounts are a means to an end. A way of traveling. Just riding around on horseback is not a game. It's like running around an empty level. What is the point of that. I don't mid gfx demos as long as they have some gameplay other than "I need to go some place else"

Yes, you're right. That lighting for that and movement looked like crap. <can you feel the sarcasm>
Once more, seeing how a cave wall is being lit by a torch is not exactly the kind of entertainment I had in mind. If I was that easily entertained, I'd get some matches and went into my closet. Endless hours of lighting and shadowing fun await me there. To put it in other words: it's the UT3 engine, of course it can do that, but this is no reason to get excited over a game, because graphics are not the game.

To relate to the first question, if MMOs can compete with modern console games. I suggest you play Heavenly Sword. For all its flaws that game had presentation beyond any other game. Throwing a few textures and high poly count models together in UT3 engine won't even begin to compete with that.

BrotherGrimm

15-04-2008, 20:21

I never have understood all the hype about game graphics....80% of the time a player is so engrossed in playing, the graphics detail goes largely unnoticed. Eye candy is icing but the game play is what you actually consume for entertainment purposes. Those that tout this technical jargon vs that new graphical technique always amuse me when they brag about how much money they spent to get 180 FPS on their system.....three times higher than the human eye can actually see....

Tru Reptile

15-04-2008, 20:47

As others have said, there's no way to know since we haven't seen a single screenshot. Graphically speaking, millions of polygons, fancy texturing techniques, etc. aren't important to me... art style is.

Even though Okami was developed on old hardware it stands as one of if not the best looking game and it's due to it's art style (IMO).

KyppDuron

15-04-2008, 20:54

Even though Okami was developed on old hardware it stands as one of if not the best looking game and it's due to it's art style (IMO).
qft

Guild wars 2 could look like oblivion and i would be happy, gw2 could look like nwn 2 and i'd be happy gw2 could look like gw1 and i'd be happy. As long as anet keeps up the fantastic art direction they've had so far i really don't care how up-to-date the graphics are.

Gorani

15-04-2008, 20:56

... when they brag about how much money they spent to get 180 FPS on their system.....three times higher than the human eye can actually see....

It's even more (25 to 30 fps with good lighting, about 20 when it is dark) :grin:

But back on topic. Devs & Jeff Strain have said on several "appearances", that GW2 will not require DX10 and it is their goal to make it run OK on PCs that are 2-3 years old, when the game comes out.

Assuming we get GW in Spring 2009, it should run PC from late 2006 (like 2.6 GHz, 1 GB RAM ATI X1600). That's a system that is not even close to "Crysis" standards.

I guess it will be close to what we can see in Age of Conan in May, which recommends a Core Duo E6600 2 GB RAM and NVIDIA 7950 GX2 or better.

Noname Otakugami

15-04-2008, 21:00

People still play Ragnarok Online.

That should answer your question.

SurviverX

15-04-2008, 21:01

Technical jargon impresses people.

"Look, my game can do AAx16 with vertex shading"

wtf is vertex shading?

tommynj

15-04-2008, 21:21

will world of warcraft hold up against next gen games yes

so why carnt guild wars

Because they have more money to work with. That is what happens when you make great games such as SC,Diablo, Warcraft, you sell millions of copies and is able to make much better games in the future.

I think Gorani hit the nail on the head. Systems reqs will be similar to AOC, though I seen some guy fraps a beta tech video on youtube. His pc was 3 years old using an ati 1900x on medium seettings and the game looked and ran perfectly fine.
Will people need the best vid card to run GW2, probably not but if they want better graphics then they should upgrade their vid card to the next level.

FourthVariety

15-04-2008, 21:22

wtf is vertex shading?

the process of altering the color, texture or drawing position of a polygon.

Imagine seeing the world through crazy kaleidoscope goggles. The world is still the same, only your perception has been messed up. Won't make a game better though if the raw data is still rotten.

Skyy High

15-04-2008, 21:30

Considering the biggest competitor in the MMORPG market is (and will probably continue to be) WoW...I don't think graphics are the main concern here.

Giggles

15-04-2008, 21:30

Will GW2 graphics hold up against the next-gen games? I don't know what they're doing and I hope it doesn't. I'd rather they put their time and money into making it a good game that a lot of people can play. If it just uses current hardware better (like using multi core cpus and more current video card capabilities) and has more of what we have currently, I will be happy.

All the special effects in the world doesn't make a movie. A lot of games and movies try to do this. All they do is wow people into buying. I'm not interested in buying a technical demo. If that's all you have, you have no staying power. See box office charts. Almost every movie starts to die after the first week.

Make it efficient, make it unique, make it fun. If you do that and advertise, people will have a look at it and make up their mind if they want to buy it.

Erasmus

15-04-2008, 21:46

It's not as though the current graphics for GW1 are hard on the eyes at all, especially for an MMO. So even if GW2 isnt state-of-the-art graphically, does it really matter? It will still look great.

Also, realistic isnt always better than stylistic. Too much realism and it loses some of it's charm and personality.

Sir Jack

15-04-2008, 21:51

High-end graphics that might lag your game client-side because you lack a decent videocard to run it at decent FPS vs decent graphics that put little strain on your videocard and barely slow down your game at all.

Seriously, are GW graphics that terrible?

JayyDestroyer

15-04-2008, 22:21

Can I have your time machine? I'd like to see what GW2 actually looks like too.

ShadowReapr

15-04-2008, 22:23

It's true that graphics aren't everything. But people who say graphics are nothing are plain and simply lying.

One thing I am inclined to wonder, how messed up does production have to be to ensure graphics takes a notable priority over game design/writing, particularly in an MMO. In an FPS, cutting a level due to time needed for graphical design is obvious, in MMOs, where most data is in some way copy and pasted across the majority of the game (how many independant faces and armours do you see?) thats a lot less probable.

Since writers rarely hold down the same job as the artists, I find it hard to believe that graphics will take priority over gameplay. And if we consider GW:EN as a precedent, I doubt level design will take a priority over gameplay.

More relevantly, I doubt we're going to see Crysis levels of graphics, but "I'm an MMO" is no excuse for the opposite. Part of the alure of an open world and exploration is what you might find - if the wide, brilliant vista is replaced by an small, dark hellhole, I'm hardly going to go a-searching.

Arkhan The Black

15-04-2008, 22:30

GW2 could look like it fell trough a woodchipper and it would still sell because of the lack of monthly fees.

Tanith

15-04-2008, 22:35

Seriously, are GW graphics that terrible?

Not at all. It's funny this debate should be going on here, because some friends of mine and I are having a "GW vs. LOTRO" debate of our own, and the subject of graphics has come up.

I play both and while I find that LOTRO has some features that are better (water effects, for example), GW is superior overall. We have one person stubbornly insisting "graphics on GW suck", but this is someone who never went beyond Post-Searing Ascalon. :wink:

So without having actually seen anything from GW2, I'd vote "yes". After all, Anet will want the game to compete with whatever's out there by its release, so they'll certainly have to pull out all the stops.

Tanith :cool:

Jair of the Forest

15-04-2008, 23:05

Nice movie. Looked a bit like Oblivion. But, the graphics weren't that impressive imo.

FourthVariety

15-04-2008, 23:24

The landscape is not that much of an issue, people will look at their gui elements anyway. If Arenanet plans on introducing new methods of moving through the environment, then they have to look natural. GW is, after all, a game in which the player spends considerable time looking at his character.

There are a lot of things that push the third person genre right now. You got the intense camera work of Gears of War, that really immerses the player and gives a near perfect impression of running. There is the brushing and pushing of people in Assassin's Creed. Then there is the facial animation of Heavenly Sword and let's not forget the Euphoria animation engine.

Those are the graphic competitors when it comes down to the 3rd person perspective aspect of the game. The game can look bad on 100 different ways up to this point even though not a single landscape polygon has been rendered. I don't think the engine will deliver Crysis style graphic and related hardware hunger. Crysis engine also means that we never actually see the main character which is saving a lot of rendering time on the one hand, but would be rather unacceptable in an MMO.

Rob Van Der Sloot

15-04-2008, 23:25

Since writers rarely hold down the same job as the artists, I find it hard to believe that graphics will take priority over gameplay.

Yet you'd be surprised how many games are produced with only that in mind.

And if we consider GW:EN as a precedent, I doubt level design will take a priority over gameplay.

The two are hard to seperate. One is not more important than the other. In a way, they are one and the same.

More relevantly, I doubt we're going to see Crysis levels of graphics, but "I'm an MMO" is no excuse for the opposite. Part of the alure of an open world and exploration is what you might find - if the wide, brilliant vista is replaced by an small, dark hellhole, I'm hardly going to go a-searching.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it won't have Crysis' level of innovation. Which is in my opinion, zip. Great graphics are nice, but if the game isn't fun to play, no one will play it.

Erasmus

15-04-2008, 23:35

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it won't have Crysis' level of innovation. Which is in my opinion, zip. Great graphics are nice, but if the game isn't fun to play, no one will play it.

I actually thought Crysis was very fun to play, but I agree with the point you were making.

ShadowReapr

16-04-2008, 00:11

The two are hard to seperate. One is not more important than the other. In a way, they are one and the same.

I was alluding to the fact that there is a hell of a lot of repetition in the GW:EN dungeons - so much, in fact, that it ruined immersion - something which renders any amount of story writing and whatnot useless.

Arutima

16-04-2008, 01:57

Online game with too much nice graphics (MMO with unreal 3 engine? watch it crash in a burning glory)

Less people end up not buying the game, and that is why devellopers try to keep their requirements as low as possible when it comes to online gaming

Wonderboy Jack

16-04-2008, 02:33

I couldn't even care less about graphics, even if GW2 has the GW1 engine, it still looks damn good! But truly, Gameplay beats graphics any day.

Fluffball

16-04-2008, 02:52

GW could be a text-based game for all I know. I play using peripheral vision to monitor my compass, skill bar recharges, party health, and enemy and ally locations on the main screen. I play my paragon 90% of the time, but I think most classes can relate to this. Certainly PvP and HM players can, and all monks. I have no idea what the graphic for something as basic as fireball is. I think there might be some sort of flash or something. :smiley:

agentele

16-04-2008, 02:54

Q: How much will it cost??
A: Mortal Online will require a monthly fee similar to other MMORPG’s on the market.

It better be worth every penny.

jayson

16-04-2008, 04:07

I think the best way to answer that is to look at how GW graphics held up against other games when it was originaly released. As it is now GW graphics are still quite impresive imo. I have no doubt that people will be pleased with the graphics of GW2.

Domethilde Du Lac

16-04-2008, 05:28

I don't care how GW2 compares to other games graphically, mechanically or in content. I play GW and will play GW2 and they will remain my only games.

thulsey

16-04-2008, 06:54

Chess is one of the most re-made game in history, as board game and as computer game, at least in the European/North American part of the world. But go on.

So which is the best game? Which of these two still have people playing it?

A. Star Control 2

B. Far Cry

Chess has been re-made, sure. A lot. But I can't think of any sequels that tried to improve on the age-old game mechanics of any of the games I mentioned.

I don't follow your second point. But go on. :wink:

Giggles

16-04-2008, 13:58

The only thing that I really hope they can achieve in the sequel is to capture the sense of scale / scope and mood that is in the concept art.

Guided Daggers

16-04-2008, 14:51

I think that kind of graphics will be medium type of GW2. Why am I saying this? Because Guild Wars has (technically) the best graphics in MMORPG's for now. I don't mean like you are torn into the world like in WoW, but like details and stuff. Also, who cares about graphics? ^^

Also, GW will still be the only game I played more then 100 hours (now about 400 hours in total), and I don't think it's because of the Graphics. Even Runescape has 2 million members, and the graphics of that game suck. I'm sure we're going to break all WoW records with GW2.

thehulkuk

16-04-2008, 15:09

That wasn't really that impressive, even Crysis (which has been out since Nov 07) has better graphics.. >_>

Crysis is actually seen by the industry as being the benchmark for games for at least this whole year anyway. This is based on the fact that its highest quality setting is only playable on a majorly powerful rig right now. Even rigs running a single 8800 GT Ultra with all detail turned max have bad fps on the highest level of quality. There has not been a game released since, I believe, that is more demanding.

SO WHAT?

However what good is that to a person with just a helf decent gaming rig. IMO the Unreal 3 engine will be just as nice and playable as Crysis to most people as most wont have enthusiast rigs Im sure to get the best from Crysis for a long time. Im sure though the Unreal 3 engine will show better graphics as it is used more and further developed.

As per the subject of the ops thread, Guild Wars graphics didnt hold up against those of the many fps games released at that time though they were pretty good still but I think GW 2 may just be below the quality of the best fps graphics of its time. Which is still very good. My reason is in the early days mmorpgs were limited in such advanced programming because of the nature of the internet at the time meant the market was limited and they werent going to be as popular as offline games. Now most gamers Im sure will have a decent internet connection making investment in such graphics much more worthwhile.

The Sins We Die By

16-04-2008, 15:12

As long as the quality is decent I don't care about how much candy my eyes get. Mechanics are more important to me and make a game for me over graphics. FFVII is one of my favorite games b/c I love the mechanics, FFX has superior graphics but was just ok with mechanics.

In any case I don't know if Vista was fixed yet, but the game won't be worth playing on Vista with DX10 if XP and DX9 runs faster, regardless of how it looks.

raspberry jam

16-04-2008, 16:00

Chess has been re-made, sure. A lot. But I can't think of any sequels that tried to improve on the age-old game mechanics of any of the games I mentioned.lol are you serious? Not only is chess one of the most re-made games in history, it's also the board game with by far most variants.

On this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_variants you can find a relatively small sample of what I mean.

I don't follow your second point. But go on. :wink::huh:

Star Control 2, while not looking like much, is a true classic and people are still playing it, creating clones and variants of it, etc.

Far Cry was one of the most beautiful-looking games ever when it was released (and it still looks good), but once you played through it once, there was no point in going back, and the multiplayer mode sucked.

In short, my point is, the longevity of a game depends on gameplay, not graphics. I don't know if you actually missed it or if you are just trolling me (if you are: good job).

shadowhand

16-04-2008, 16:48

thehulkuk

16-04-2008, 16:58

Who gives a damn?

I've yet to buy a game because of its graphics.

Ok, that's not true. I did buy Unreal because it looked amazing for its time.

But an rpg or a mmo? - I honestly couldn't care less how the graphics were if the game itself was good.

Honestly? Would you be playing Guild wars the way you do right now if it looked like the first Ultima Online? The reason I ask is not to be silly but to get at what level of graphics you would accept and you did say it doesnt matter?

Arkhan The Black

16-04-2008, 18:39

GW2 better be one of the better looking MMO's out there when it is out because GW1 looks so hopelessly last generation.

Although one of the things I liked about GW1 when it was new was the fact that it looked awesome without screwing my hardware to much.

sorudo

16-04-2008, 18:58

thulsey

16-04-2008, 19:01

lol are you serious? Not only is chess one of the most re-made games in history, it's also the board game with by far most variants.

On this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_variants you can find a relatively small sample of what I mean.

:huh:

Star Control 2, while not looking like much, is a true classic and people are still playing it, creating clones and variants of it, etc.

Far Cry was one of the most beautiful-looking games ever when it was released (and it still looks good), but once you played through it once, there was no point in going back, and the multiplayer mode sucked.

In short, my point is, the longevity of a game depends on gameplay, not graphics. I don't know if you actually missed it or if you are just trolling me (if you are: good job).
Not trolling at all.

My original point was that the graphics - in ADDITION to gameplay - were what held my attention to the game. You brought up your example of how that didn't happen in two other games I've never played. But it happened in this one. I'm not trolling, just extolling that this game, for me, had that appeal.

As for chess - seriously? There seems to be many variants that I and (I'll dare-say) none of my friends who love chess and play GW, in all it's old-school glory, have ever played.

How did you prove your point? (What was the point?)

Not thick, just thinking that GW2 will probably still kick azz graphically and that will proll'y be icing on the cake for me.

No spurt wars here, man! :wink:

edit: thanks for the wiki link!

shadowhand

16-04-2008, 22:08

Honestly? Would you be playing Guild wars the way you do right now if it looked like the first Ultima Online? The reason I ask is not to be silly but to get at what level of graphics you would accept and you did say it doesnt matter?

If it didn't have the horrible lag and pay to play system of Ultima Online, sure.

But, you'll have to bear with me, I'm used to old-school MMO games.

They weren't even called MMO games when I started playing them and they didn't have graphics either. They were called MUDs.

And I still play a MUD sometimes when the urge for some oldfashioned text-based multiplayer rpg comes over me :)

So, maybe that's just be, but I honestly don't care much for graphics as long as they serve their purpose - in a game like guild wars that purpose is showing me the location of my allies and opponents and which skills my current target is activating and all that...

raspberry jam

17-04-2008, 01:42

Not thick, just thinking that GW2 will probably still kick azz graphically and that will proll'y be icing on the cake for me.I agree! :grin: Gameplay > graphics, but on the other hand, who would say no to seeing something nice?

Sefk

18-04-2008, 13:51

Maybe just:
no lag+better scaling>graphic.

Wuzzman

19-04-2008, 00:39

if i have to buy a new computer or graphic card to buy your game, i won't buy your game.

Tru Reptile

19-04-2008, 01:29

if i have to buy a new computer or graphic card to buy your game, i won't buy your game.

I think it was said that if your PC is 2 or 3 years old by the time GW2 hits retail, it should run it ok.

Wuzzman

19-04-2008, 20:01

I think it was said that if your PC is 2 or 3 years old by the time GW2 hits retail, it should run it ok.

thats what all PC companies say doesn't mean its true....

Alexia of Durham

19-04-2008, 20:18

That's not true. Crysis is not 3-4 generation ahead. It's exactly the current generation. Except that it combines pretty much all the techniques known to man and cramps a lot of detail in small spaces.

An comparable engine is Stalker: CS. We'll see how it runs when it's out this summer. Original Stalker:SoC had nearly as good an engine, just not as much detail in one place, and not as sophisticated physics engine (hence it ran a lot better).

Better compare it to another MMO of NCsoft- and there's loads of screenshots and ingame footage from that one on the net - AION . It uses an original farcry engine which the developers tweaked.From what I understand Chronicles of Spellborn will be using - or is using - the UNREAL engine ( obviously also tweaked ) .

Point is MMO's can hardly use nextgen or even currentgen engines since that would mean all their potential customers would need to have a very recent PC. They can't expect players to buy new PC en masse just to play their game.

If GW 2 has similar graphics as AION we'll be fine for years to come ..... besides : gameplay is far more important than how a game looks .One thing is certain: I'll be subscribing to Aion because that one looks to become NCsoft's flagship-MMO .Let's just hope Anet watches all those MMO's coming out and learns from them - as well as providing continuity with regard to GW 1 - i.e. : take the good stuff from them and leave out the bad stuff ;)

kondichael

10-07-2008, 01:45

KyppDuron

10-07-2008, 06:04

I want GW2 to be Next Gen, with graphics like Crysis (at least).

Also as tweakable as Crysis:

Ultra Low - 6600GT/2 Ghz Pentium Dx 9.c. (For those ppl who dont care about graphics)

Ultra High - 2x HD4870 x2/QX95xx Dx 10.1.

That scenario should make everybody happy.

No, that would make the 10% of players who have "Ultra High" Pc's happy, everyone else would be stuck with Guild Wars "Hideous, muddy, why are you even keeping your eyes open?"2.
See, you made the mistake of assuming that those of us who can't (or won't) buy uber-rigs don't like to look at their monitors when we play games: we do. If GW2 looks like aion does i'll be happy.

kondichael

10-07-2008, 12:08

No, that would make the 10% of players who have "Ultra High" Pc's happy, everyone else would be stuck with Guild Wars "Hideous, muddy, why are you even keeping your eyes open?"2.
See, you made the mistake of assuming that those of us who can't (or won't) buy uber-rigs don't like to look at their monitors when we play games: we do. If GW2 looks like aion does i'll be happy.

Crysis with low settings also look good.

Alexia of Durham

10-07-2008, 12:21

Crysis with low settings also look good.

I beg to differ. Crysis was designed with über-rigs in mind . You can maybe run it at lower settings but it's mediocre then . There is no MMO - either presently or which will be released soon - which does that ( with the exception of AoC maybe ) because it is a mistake. MMO's should run just fine- also graphics wise - on an average PC .

If GW2 looks like aion does i'll be happy.

Indeed . Aion is a prime example of how it works with MMO's .They use a recent engine ,tweak it to have optimal graphics and then optimize the game across the board so folks with PC's which are , say , 2 years old can still run the MMO at medium settings .

Last I heard an Nvdia 7-series ( or equivalent ) would be able to run Aion to satisfaction and it would still be pleasing to look at . Obviously someone owning an 8-series and upwards can boost graphics but the designers started from the assumption it has to be satisfactory for as many players as possible .

a Crysis -model of design is out of the question for any MMO.

captain lucky

10-07-2008, 13:35

I can play Crysis using an old Pentium 4 and 1950X pro, and let me tell you something on low setting's I can seriously say Morrowind of all games gives it a run for its money.

minus the great

10-07-2008, 14:35

First of all, I completed Crysis on maximum settings without AA with this setup:

AMD Opteron 180 - 2.4GHz Dual Core
3GB DDR400 Memory
Gefore 8800GTS 512Mb-edition
22" monitor@ 1680x1050
Vista Ultimate x64
Crysis-64bit

I had about 30 FPS average (which is smooth) so I don't see how you need Quad SLI to play it on max. My system is pretty old (except for the GPU maybe, which is 2 generations behind now) and was still able to run it. What DID help ALOT was 64-bit, makes everything SO much faster.

I wouldn't mind having a good graphical GW, that requires me to buy a new PC (everyone should upgrade his atleast once a year imo if you're gaming).
BUT I also wouldn't mind something Mid-range aslong as the gameplay is decent.

64-bit version would be nice though...*hint*

SibbTigre

10-07-2008, 14:45

If GW 2 has similar graphics as AION we'll be fine for years to come ..... besides : gameplay is far more important than how a game looks ....

GW1 looks great compared to many MMORPGs of the same few years. I have no reason to doubt GW2 with look great compared to MMORPGs that are out when it's released.

But gameplay is far more important than graphics alone. I reckon ANet will do a good job providing us with decent, at worst, graphics and very high standard gameplay.

kondichael

10-07-2008, 14:55

Graphics - 40%
Gameplay - 60%

stanzhao

10-07-2008, 15:11

i'm sure the graphics for GW2 will be amazing.

Even the graphics in GW now i think are high above a lot of other online games out there. You only have to look at some of the awesome scenery we have in the game at the moment to appreciate how much the anet team obviously wants the game to look good.

Plus you always have the option to turn up and down the graphics for smoother gameplay.

Alexia of Durham

10-07-2008, 18:44

AMD Opteron 180 - 2.4GHz Dual Core
3GB DDR400 Memory
Gefore 8800GTS 512Mb-edition
22" monitor@ 1680x1050
Vista Ultimate x64
Crysis-64bit

Let me assure you: that isn't an average PC :)

It's also well above the recommended system for Aion, the next big one at NCsoft , so it most definitely is ok for GW 2 .

These games are MMO's , not FPS-games . An MMO is relying in its entirety on number of players :
- buying the game
- sticking around in the game until expansions etc. arrive ( and buying those ) .

No MMO-developer can afford to aim for a tiny player-base , they have to reach as many PC-users as possible. That means they have to design it with the average PC in mind .

Lamuness

10-07-2008, 20:36

Either way, I think you're all missing the point. As Rob Van der Shoot said, there are a lot of games where the main selling point is their graphics. Why do you think people release screenshots? You can't tell gameplay from screenshots. I've worked for companies where they figure out the core gameplay and say, yes this is what we're going to do and this is how our engine is going to be, and whatevers, but when it comes down to it, the actual gameplay: placing enemies, the paths you take, etc. either come last or during the time art is being made for it. It's just how North American companies are. At least the ones I've worked for.

You say graphics don't matter? Graphics DO matter. If I saw a big mean mofo trotting around with crazy animation, with great weight in its movement, and it was charging at me, I'd be crazy freaked out, my adrenaline would be pumpin and I'd try to kill that thing. Why do you think Diablo 3 is going to do so well? Great art style, with the same gameplay we've seen in the past. But I'm not saying you should be playing a pretty game that has no gameplay, I'm saying they interweave into one another. I'd like to see them spend equally as much time on art and gameplay. No skimps on either.

That being said, everyone seems to joygasm when they see Unreal 3 engine. It's not that good of an engine for anything other than Unreal Tournament or Gears of War. That's it. Mortal Online does some good tricks, but the environment is too drab, and it's not very impressive. I expect GW2 to at least have more color in it, judging how GW:EN was, and how Pre-Searing was, and how they don't seem to be jumping on the bandwagon that everyone else is on for graphical style.

And I totally agree with FourthVariety.

Apple Tox

10-07-2008, 21:40

Graphics are everything.

Realistic Graphics are a different story. Graphics dont have to realistic like GW's to be good.

Look at WoW's Cartoon "block style" looking animation.

Last time I checked they had a good amount of players.

~Apple

SibbTigre

10-07-2008, 22:39

Graphics are everything.

There are some really good looking games out there, which didn't sell because the people who did buy it, said the gameplay was terrible.

Graphics are a selling point, but have little effect on the gameplay.

Gameplay is another selling point. If the game has excellent gameplay people are much more likely to tell their friends about it.

sorudo

10-07-2008, 22:39

in the game market, game looks are not the big matter if the game it self is good.
i think that tabula rasa looks good, but it's boring, while GW1 doesn't look good but the game it self is good.
if i would compare the same game types, then ill compare TMO with COX.
although TMO is made especially for matrix fans, it's not worth the monthly fee.(and i am a fan, i just can't pay the fee)
while with COX, it's old and ugly, but the game it self is stunning.

do know one thing, the engine a company chooses is determined by what there aim is.
and for most MMO's, they rather have an ugly but fun game then a high spec MMO that just takes to long to finish.
AION looks stunning and all, but as long as i've never played it, it's more the wait if it's worth the trouble at all.

stanzhao

10-07-2008, 23:08

in the game market, game looks are not the big matter if the game it self is good.

pretty much says it all. look at todays current consoles.

while xbox360 and ps3 have all the good graphics. the nintendo wii and the nintendo DS are outselling them like crazy. not because the graphics are better, but because the game play is innovative. the game play keeps the person entertained and intrested. Its something different that sets it apart from everyone else. something new to try.

i would rather have lesser graphics if it meant the game play was 100x better.

a company can spend all its budget on graphics, but the gameplay will suffer because of it. Guild Wars at the moment has a great balance of good looking graphics and good gameplay.

and i hope this continues into GW2

Wonderboy Jack

11-07-2008, 10:01

Graphics are everything.

Wrong,

WoW still has a huge playerbase because of Gameplay.

Guild Wars still has a huge playerbase because of Gameplay.

Graphics are not everything in a game. I find games more enjoyable if you are able to run the game perfectly, without requiring a god system that requires you to fork *** loads of money on. Graphics are not everything, stop kidding yourself or go buy AoC.

raspberry jam

11-07-2008, 12:56

Graphics are everything.One of the by far most innovative games released so far during 2008 (Dwarf Fortress. google for it) uses some ugly as hell kind of textmode graphics.

Akirai Annuvil

11-07-2008, 14:11

Graphics are everything.
Yep.
Which is why starcraft II has more players than Command and Conquer.
Oh wait, no.
Oh well then, graphics being everything is the reason final fantasy XII is more popular than final fantasy VI.
Oh wait it isn't.
Surely the graphical superiority is what makes Age of Conan less popular than World of Warcraft?
Oh wait that's false (again)!
At the very least your supposed ultimate importance of graphics should be accurately reflected in hardware sales?
Oh oh oh wait for it - again your hypothesis fails.

How utterly unsurprising.
You're wrong.

Alexia of Durham

11-07-2008, 14:44

Yep.
Which is why starcraft II has more players than Command and Conquer.
Oh wait, no.
Oh well then, graphics being everything is the reason final fantasy XII is more popular than final fantasy VI.
Oh wait it isn't.
Surely the graphical superiority is what makes Age of Conan less popular than World of Warcraft?
Oh wait that's false (again)!
At the very least your supposed ultimate importance of graphics should be accurately reflected in hardware sales?
Oh oh oh wait for it - again your hypothesis fails.

How utterly unsurprising.
You're wrong.

Anyone here remember dragon's lair ( back in the old days of CBM Amiga ) ? Everyone was drooling over those graphics until they actually started to play it . If memory serves when it was reviewed graphics got 9/10 , gameplay 3/10 and net result was 4/10 :grin:

Another example : Tomb Raider ,Angel of Darkness . It had great graphics - at the time - but was still considered by all TR fans to be utter c**p due to very bad controls . As a result Core Design had such a massive failure on their hands they folded ( or Eidos took away the TR-license ,to be more precise -but the end result was the same : Core design folded ) .

Anyone remember original Prince of Persia ( not the 3d c**p but the original platform game ) ? That game had substandard graphics but the animation of the main toon was astounding and the game oozed atmosphere . It was the gameplay that did it .

I'd much rather have a game which draws you into the game-world by gameplay and atmosphere rather than a game which is all about looks and sound .

I posted at Aion forums the devs need to be careful not to lose sight of that . You can become so engrossed in the looks you completely forget it has to be playable as well. But from what I understand from beta-testers at Aion it is highly playable and fun . Just hope Anet approaches GW 2 in the same way : gameplay > graphics by huge margin .

ikra

11-07-2008, 14:56

there should be equilibrium imo. Same amount of detail in both graphics and gameplay. I am so put off by WoW and one of the main reason is because of the graphics. Oblivion, Stalker, COD4, Witcher, Crysis... are my favourite games. Why? its because they both have gameplay and graphics elements. I feel much more immersed if a game have a very good graphical direction. I tried playing WoW gameplay wise it offers a lot of replayability, but games which requires thousands of hours... no thanks. Guild Wars has a very good graphics but i still feel its a bit lacking in the role play and persistence. But the reason i play it is because its free, it meets my fun levels and the armours are well worth it and the detail on my characters face is brilliant. It gives me the atmosphere perfectly

kondichael

11-07-2008, 16:36

Graphics is an important element.

I bought Crysis only cause of the graphics/physics.

while xbox360 and ps3 have all the good graphics. the nintendo wii and the nintendo DS are outselling them like crazy.

Cause Asian ppl are addicted to Mario.

Alexia of Durham

11-07-2008, 16:41

but games which requires thousands of hours...

But that's almost inherent to MMO's :smiley:

But there has to be balance for sure.But we all know there have been lots of lemons which had awesome graphics but were so lacking in gameplay they're now on the shelf collecting dust . In the end - no matter how fancy the graphics are- it's the gameplay which decides the longeivity of any game . Also because graphics which look great now will be subpar in 6 months time .

Check out a new game like 7 minutes ( google for 7 minutes game ) .It's incredibly addictive - haven't played it yet myself for fear of getting hooked - and has incredbly c****Y graphics . To the point you'd say " how dare a developer produce something looking this bad ! " . So that one is about gameplay in its entirety .

Look at portal : does that look stunning ? not really but it's a "one more go "- game . Same for Half life 2 , graphics are dated but the gameplay and atmosphere make up for that .

Guild wars is still fun to play due to the gameplay,not due to graphics .

Cause Asian ppl are addicted to Mario.

That doesn't account for the success of the Wii in Europe and USA . No, that console is a winner because it focused on playability of the games and not on graphics. There comes a point where we'll all say "seen it already " and then you can haveüber-rigs and fancy graphics and it won't matter because we'll be ooking for innovation in gameplay and atmosphere . It doesn't take incredible graphics to create atmosphere ( case in point being the aforementioned original prince of Persia ) .

Call of Duty is such a huge success because it creates a mood whereby you- as player- feel you are in the war .