Recently I ran into someone on another game and we debated on the graphics of Guild Wars. He believes Guild Wars is crap simply because it uses saturation and glow effects to look good but has a low polygon count. To me polygon count doesn't mean squat if the game looks as good as Guild Wars and puts less wear and tear on your video card. Seriously if it looks good and is durable who cares how it's made.
Opinions?
Graphics Debate
Swingline
Shadar
To make the game look good turn off post process effects. I can't stand that fake bloom/glow look.
GW2 will hopefuly have support for HDR and other modern graphics features. Yes, it's all just eye candy but it's expected from high-budget titles these days.
GW2 will hopefuly have support for HDR and other modern graphics features. Yes, it's all just eye candy but it's expected from high-budget titles these days.
Nyta
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shadar
To make the game look good turn off post process effects.
|
On the first computer I played GW on, my video card didn't meet the minimum reqs for the game and removed a lot of the special graphical effects--more than what was later tied to the post processing effects box. The Jade Sea in particular on that card was beautiful, since it removed that weird smooth wax/plastic-looking layer on the sea, leaving it looking like an actual rough cut of jade. After I got another computer and had a card that met the reqs for the game and saw what the Jade Sea was designed to look like, I was really disappointed. They really overdid it with all the glowing plastic look everywhere. Even turning off post processing effects didn't make it look like it did on my old card. :/
Hobbs
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nyta
That, seriously. I also feel that the game looks better when it's not trying to blind me.
On the first computer I played GW on, my video card didn't meet the minimum reqs for the game and removed a lot of the special graphical effects--more than what was later tied to the post processing effects box. The Jade Sea in particular on that card was beautiful, since it removed that weird smooth wax/plastic-looking layer on the sea, leaving it looking like an actual rough cut of jade. After I got another computer and had a card that met the reqs for the game and saw what the Jade Sea was designed to look like, I was really disappointed. They really overdid it with all the glowing plastic look everywhere. Even turning off post processing effects didn't make it look like it did on my old card. :/ |
The graphics in GW are not bad enough for me to notice or for it to impact on my playing experience, and that's what matters.
Verene
Graphics are always a secondary concern for me in a game. Pretty graphics won't make a terrible game good.
GW's graphics are perfectly fine, especially considering how old the game is. No, it doesn't exactly stand up to today's standards, but it's a 6 year old game designed to be able to run on any mid-range computer at that time.
So, with that in mind, I'd say that GW's graphics are actually pretty amazing, since they still look damn good.
GW's graphics are perfectly fine, especially considering how old the game is. No, it doesn't exactly stand up to today's standards, but it's a 6 year old game designed to be able to run on any mid-range computer at that time.
So, with that in mind, I'd say that GW's graphics are actually pretty amazing, since they still look damn good.
Killed u man
It's all taste really. The fact that almost every game has blooming and other "cheap" lightning effects goes the show it's either very effective time/efficiency wise or has the better overal customer satisfaction degree.
I, personally, don't mind bloom or other cheesy effects. If the game looks great, it looks great. I also often scratch my head when people start bashing on bloom, but praise other just-as-cheap effects getting used in the same game. (Smears, Image Burns, etc.. All that good stuff that adds "realism")
GW is designed to be a fantasy world, as are most other games. I don't mind having blooming effects everywhere, being unrealistic for our physical world -but realistic for that world nontheless- because it just adds that little bit to completely take you away from reality, for me anyways.
It's all taste, no definite truths. All we can do is hope Anet will give us a large range of abilities towards customizing our graphic settings the way we please, then everyone is happy...
I, personally, don't mind bloom or other cheesy effects. If the game looks great, it looks great. I also often scratch my head when people start bashing on bloom, but praise other just-as-cheap effects getting used in the same game. (Smears, Image Burns, etc.. All that good stuff that adds "realism")
GW is designed to be a fantasy world, as are most other games. I don't mind having blooming effects everywhere, being unrealistic for our physical world -but realistic for that world nontheless- because it just adds that little bit to completely take you away from reality, for me anyways.
It's all taste, no definite truths. All we can do is hope Anet will give us a large range of abilities towards customizing our graphic settings the way we please, then everyone is happy...
Riot Narita
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Swingline
He believes Guild Wars is crap simply because it uses saturation and glow effects to look good but has a low polygon count
|
Don't waste your time trying to have a "debate" with him.
RedDog91
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Verene
Pretty graphics won't make a terrible game good.
|
its a shame so many MMOs are focusing on over-hauling their visuals and leaving their gameplay to rot.
Anaraky
Great detailed artwork > cranking the hell out of the polygon-count.
GW looks great.
GW looks great.
Swingline
The bloom/glow effects do not bother me one bit. I actually like the waxy look of the jade sea but thats me.
It was a silly 1 minute debate :P
Just wanted to see what GW player thought.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Riot Narita
If he really believes high polygon count is what makes a game "good"... then my opinion:
Don't waste your time trying to have a "debate" with him. |
Just wanted to see what GW player thought.
Spiritz
A good game to me has nice graffics but over the top graffics.
99% of the time i use lowest settings altho i have a 512mb card which can handle everything on full - but when im fighting i dont have time to sit and think how gd that grass looks or how the stream looks.
Most of the time im focused on what im doing - ask a driver if he can tell you what plants/adverts/buildings he passed as he drives along and usually they say they cant really - its all the same as we are focused on what we are doing rather than surroundings.
Tho ive never played WoW and gameplay isnt the issue but graffics wise - give me gw anyday as chrs look gd rather than poor cartoony things that a 9yr draws.
On a side note - graffics isnt everything as many of us may remember 2 great classic games from ages gone - Doom and Duke Nukem series , now they wasnt super duper graffic games but they actually got you hooked on the game regardless of its looks and most players always went bk for more and revenge :P
99% of the time i use lowest settings altho i have a 512mb card which can handle everything on full - but when im fighting i dont have time to sit and think how gd that grass looks or how the stream looks.
Most of the time im focused on what im doing - ask a driver if he can tell you what plants/adverts/buildings he passed as he drives along and usually they say they cant really - its all the same as we are focused on what we are doing rather than surroundings.
Tho ive never played WoW and gameplay isnt the issue but graffics wise - give me gw anyday as chrs look gd rather than poor cartoony things that a 9yr draws.
On a side note - graffics isnt everything as many of us may remember 2 great classic games from ages gone - Doom and Duke Nukem series , now they wasnt super duper graffic games but they actually got you hooked on the game regardless of its looks and most players always went bk for more and revenge :P
VikingHaag
Cool graphics are nice, but the game is what counts, far cry 2 has great graphics, but the game isn't that nice.
Enchanted Krystal
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nyta
That, seriously. I also feel that the game looks better when it's not trying to blind me....
|
Iuris
Guild wars 1 graphics are a magnificent example of how to achieve impressive results on a low end machine by using artwork and a few strategically placed effects rather than making a complex and demanding engine that generates those effects "naturally".
Since GW1 has to run on low end machines, I fully support the direction it has taken.
Since GW1 has to run on low end machines, I fully support the direction it has taken.
Lest121
GW graphics is great for an old game....
asb
You don't need a high poly count and hyperrealism for game visuals to look good.
Tom Swift
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iuris
Guild wars 1 graphics are a magnificent example of how to achieve impressive results on a low end machine by using artwork and a few strategically placed effects rather than making a complex and demanding engine that generates those effects "naturally".
Since GW1 has to run on low end machines, I fully support the direction it has taken. |
shoesbags
I just want to link this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...-vs-Aesthetics
Guild Wars has dated graphics, but beautiful aesthetics. I still think Guild Wars is one of the best looking games on the market, and it's what...a little over 6 years old now?
argh ;]
Guild Wars has dated graphics, but beautiful aesthetics. I still think Guild Wars is one of the best looking games on the market, and it's what...a little over 6 years old now?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asb
You don't need a high poly count and hyperrealism for game visuals to look good.
|
makosi
It has always surprised me as to how GW can look so good with a distinctly mediocre graphics card. It makes other games a visual disappointment if you switch over.
thedarkmarine
half-life 2 is laughing at the pathetic standards in this thread
Plutoman
I hope GW2 doesn't bump up graphics too much - or at least, provides support for both low and high end cards. I'm in college, I can't afford a new computer ;_;
Lishy
I think low specs is what makes GW so awesome. They better not change it in GW2!
I was able to play Guild Wars on a MINI laptop used for school!
I was able to play Guild Wars on a MINI laptop used for school!
hunter
yeah, thats RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing great. You can play it on your shitty laptop.
Problem is, if they make it playable on a shitty laptop, the graphics are going to suck by todays standards. I want at least a a game that will have beautiful graphics (note you scrubs, i said beautiful, not good aka cutting edge) so that it can at least compete with other games for at least the first 2-3 years of its life. You need some photo realism as well as artistic realism or whatever
WoW made the mistake of going so far into the stylized end of the spectrum that the graphics now look like a piece of shit. But again it was made primarily to target the 11-19 demographic followed by the 30+ basement dwellers (read: hardcore raiders).
My only real beef with GW1 is the lack of a Z axes and the very restrictive movement you are imposed into the map. Can't fall down the cliff, or even 2 stairs below if you are not meant to do so. Its quite retarded on areas like post searing ascalon where you can only move through a strait line and nothing else.
Problem is, if they make it playable on a shitty laptop, the graphics are going to suck by todays standards. I want at least a a game that will have beautiful graphics (note you scrubs, i said beautiful, not good aka cutting edge) so that it can at least compete with other games for at least the first 2-3 years of its life. You need some photo realism as well as artistic realism or whatever
WoW made the mistake of going so far into the stylized end of the spectrum that the graphics now look like a piece of shit. But again it was made primarily to target the 11-19 demographic followed by the 30+ basement dwellers (read: hardcore raiders).
My only real beef with GW1 is the lack of a Z axes and the very restrictive movement you are imposed into the map. Can't fall down the cliff, or even 2 stairs below if you are not meant to do so. Its quite retarded on areas like post searing ascalon where you can only move through a strait line and nothing else.
NerfHerder
I say the graphics in GW still looks pretty good. Ive been watching gameplay videos of SWTOR lately and it doesnt look any better than GW1 imo. I always thought WoW looks really cheesy. And, I couldnt care less about poly count or what graphics engine is used, as long as it looks good.
Although, I do hope GW2 has a higher resolution function that takes advantage of todays newer graphics cards, but is still playable on your "basic" computer. One of the best features about GW1 is that you dont have to have a high end machine, (ie. disposable income) in order to play.
Although, I do hope GW2 has a higher resolution function that takes advantage of todays newer graphics cards, but is still playable on your "basic" computer. One of the best features about GW1 is that you dont have to have a high end machine, (ie. disposable income) in order to play.
Charlie Dayman
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NerfHerder
One of the best features about GW1 is that you dont have to have a high end machine, (ie. disposable income) in order to play.
|
hunter
1 thing you people don't understand is that GW2 is a MMO. As such it is supposed to be long lived. I wouldn't be surprised if Anet planned for that game to last for a good 10 years. (heck it took them like 5 to develop it)
Remember that a high end computer now will be considered shitty 3 years down the road. Therefore unless Anet upgrades the graphics and source engine somewhere down the road, if they go for low end specs now, it will simply mean that in 2 years it will be very ...very low end.
This is why i actually hope that when its released, the game will be optimized for middle-high end systems. If not high end. They can always add in ways to scale down graphics and such but you have to realize that whats high end this year, will be low end 2 years from now, when the game is still in its early stages.
Remember that a high end computer now will be considered shitty 3 years down the road. Therefore unless Anet upgrades the graphics and source engine somewhere down the road, if they go for low end specs now, it will simply mean that in 2 years it will be very ...very low end.
This is why i actually hope that when its released, the game will be optimized for middle-high end systems. If not high end. They can always add in ways to scale down graphics and such but you have to realize that whats high end this year, will be low end 2 years from now, when the game is still in its early stages.
Rocky Raccoon
If the game is fun that is all that matters, graphics are a bonus.
Rook Parcade
For me, whilst I like GW graphics, it's the animations that I love. Everything (except maybe walking up stairs) just looks so natural and fluid. Moreso than the GW2 trailers which kinda annoys me, although maybe I'm just using my rose tinted glasses.
hunter
While nice, the animations are in fact quite static. There is no block, no dodge, and no lower and upper body movement (that is attacking while moving, or while strafing).
This is partly due to the engine being particularly limited for even when the game came out (have a look at the wow game engine, much much better and both games came out at the same time)
Basically, while my warriors sword animations are nice (there are 2 of them) watching her get smacked constantly while carrying a huge ass shield is getting old. Right now all the shield is for is to raise your armor value and to fill in the item for your offhand.
Heck guys, even older games like Diable 2 had blocking in it, where a block would incur a block animation, or dodge.
This is partly due to the engine being particularly limited for even when the game came out (have a look at the wow game engine, much much better and both games came out at the same time)
Basically, while my warriors sword animations are nice (there are 2 of them) watching her get smacked constantly while carrying a huge ass shield is getting old. Right now all the shield is for is to raise your armor value and to fill in the item for your offhand.
Heck guys, even older games like Diable 2 had blocking in it, where a block would incur a block animation, or dodge.
IlikeGW
Guild Wars is really very old at this point. I mean it was released to run fine on 2005 systems. Why even debate the graphics compared to modern titles, it makes no sense. And the bloom filter you can shut off to make the game look substantially clearer.
Verene
Quote:
| Problem is, if they make it playable on a shitty laptop, the graphics are going to suck by todays standards. |
Compare Perfect Dark Zero, which came out in late 2005 (Xbox 360 launch title) with Battlefield 3, coming out in a few months. There's no comparison. And that's just console shots there - PCs advance in tech way faster than consoles do.
So to say that GW doesn't stand up to today's standards is silly, because anyone that'd actually expect it to is an idiot.
Charlie Dayman
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Verene
Games made six years ago are going to have graphics that suck by today's standards, period.
|
From what we can see of the gameplay videos, the graphics are pretty solid. But instead of relying on an engine that requires the latest tech to run at 100%, they're letting their art team go crazy with creating a visually memorable game. Like the video someone posted earlier, aesthetics > graphics.
The same can be said for GW1. It's an old game, but the design of its environments are memorable. Would uber-graphics help? Certainly, though it's not really needed.
thedarkmarine
half life 2 was still amazing after 6 years.
so no, no period, not yours
so no, no period, not yours
Verene
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thedarkmarine
half life 2 was still amazing after 6 years.
so no, no period, not yours |
HL2 may be a great game, but it still doesn't look anywhere near as nice as anything that came out six years after it did. However, it doesn't need to, it's an old game, and good games don't need shiny graphics to carry them.
Premium Unleaded
I have a gtx 460, yet still run it all on low except vsync and the res itself. I don't need my system to run warmer than needed and really don't give a damn about the graphics outside of what's necessary at this point tbh. I also started this game way back on a mid-low tier pc w/ a MX440, and it ran fine then from what I remembered.
Frankly, that person is just talking complete shit. My personal preferences aside, the concept/design of the game world is very good as mentioned
Frankly, that person is just talking complete shit. My personal preferences aside, the concept/design of the game world is very good as mentioned
Urcscumug
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rook Parcade
Everything (except maybe walking up stairs) just looks so natural and fluid.
|
thedarkmarine
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Verene
I didn't say the game would suck, I said that no game that old is going to have graphics that match current standards.
HL2 may be a great game, but it still doesn't look anywhere near as nice as anything that came out six years after it did. However, it doesn't need to, it's an old game, and good games don't need shiny graphics to carry them. |
Tommy's
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shadar
To make the game look good turn off post process effects. I can't stand that fake bloom/glow look.
|
jazilla
I still think GW is a decent looking game for the era in which it was made.
Darcy
I bought GW and Civ4 on the same day for my son. He couldn't play Civ4 due to the high-resource graphics as you would tell your settler to go somewhere and then have supper while you waited. He could play GW with no problems.
This was a case of ArenaNet smarts. Their low polygon count meant that I bought GW for myself and then Factions, Nightfall & EotN. My son bought the followups for himself and the whole set for his son. So thanks to a low-polygon count and gorgeous graphics design, ArenaNet made a fistful of sales and Civ4 sat on the shelf forever with no additional purchases of the box.
This was a case of ArenaNet smarts. Their low polygon count meant that I bought GW for myself and then Factions, Nightfall & EotN. My son bought the followups for himself and the whole set for his son. So thanks to a low-polygon count and gorgeous graphics design, ArenaNet made a fistful of sales and Civ4 sat on the shelf forever with no additional purchases of the box.