Originally posted by snapfusion Originally posted by sanosukex they locked the other thread about the high-res textures so ill post this here... I was trying out conan again yesterday since its F2P and tried to get the game running with everything maxed out and guess what not even my 3,500 dollar gaming system can run those settings with a resonable framerate yet they are still there. But guess what I can leave al lthe textures and everything max and turn off shadows and get a good framerate.. i would much rather run high res textures with no shadows in this game since the shadows suck anyway and just take up valuable resources. Options options options.. this is why people usually play pc games over console in many cases for the options(assuming game is avaialble for both platforms...). If I wanted to be stuck without being able to choose anything myself I'd stick with my 200 dollar xbox 360. this link has some good comparison shots.. one big issue I have is the face.. without the high-res peoples faces look awful.. I know not a big deal to many people but it bothers me a lot. http://mmomfg.com/2012/01/11/star-wars-the-old-republic-high-resolution-textures-011/
I have to agree the graphics overall are very poor. There are only pockets of the game that seem to look decent almost as if that zone or area was worked on by a different team of devs within BW.
I would have to disagree. I wouldn't call the graphics 'great' or 'better than anything else', but I certainly wouldn't call them poor. I would describe them as good, but not a primary reason to play the game.
If your goal is to find a game where the graphics are cranked up past the point at which your machine can play them, this is not a game you should play.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
From the cutscenes to the in-game world, no other MMO comes close visually.
This has now been exposed as totally false. Mr VerBruggen can say what he likes but he cannot dodge the fact that his review is factually wrong. The simple fact is he clearly did not review the retail release.
And that is what we (consumers) expect from a game review. If he was reviewing the Beta, he should have said so. It makes a difference, simply because a Beta is not the game. We all know that in development games change lots. Features are added, changed and removed. But none of that matters because that is not the game. The game (the thing that we pay for) is the thing that comes in the retail box. Mr VerBruggen clearly never played that version. The Cheat Code Central review is therefor for a game that was never released. Mr VerBruggen probably got paid for his review - IMHO he owes someone their money back.
For those that took the time to read the OP and think about it for what it was - thank you.
While I see your point, I doubt that you can just assume like that that he's wrong unless you can look inside his head. Sure, it's hyperbolic exaggeration of the reviewer, but it might as well be his personal opinion. Graphics is more than just how high your poly count can get, but also how you use them. I don't agree with a 9 or 9.5, but having wandered around ingame, I'd give SWTOR personally a solid 8.5 based on the scenery and vistas, from a Coruscant to a Hoth and further. It's all personal impressions anyway. I mean, character graphics in LotrO really sucked imo, but based on the landscapes I'd still give LotrO a 9 for graphics and atmosphere of the graphics, higher than a lot of higher res and poly count MMO's.
As for AoC and performance stability on highest graphics settings, that's a wrong example. The first months after launch were a real horror, most people can attest to that even if they themselves had merely a few problems. They did a good job with optimisation and squeezing the best out of its graphical performance, but that was only after like 2 years that they reached this level of overall stability and excellence.
Comments
I would have to disagree. I wouldn't call the graphics 'great' or 'better than anything else', but I certainly wouldn't call them poor. I would describe them as good, but not a primary reason to play the game.
If your goal is to find a game where the graphics are cranked up past the point at which your machine can play them, this is not a game you should play.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
As for AoC and performance stability on highest graphics settings, that's a wrong example. The first months after launch were a real horror, most people can attest to that even if they themselves had merely a few problems. They did a good job with optimisation and squeezing the best out of its graphical performance, but that was only after like 2 years that they reached this level of overall stability and excellence.
There are enough threads on this topic. Ill be locking this one up.
Locked.