Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Do game graphics really matter?
pittpete
Member Posts: 233
I found this screen in the Axis forums.
Graphics look pretty decent.
Comments
I think it matters as well, but not quite as much if the game also had some"meat" to it> For me, If there's a somewhat deep RPG layer to said game, I could forgive the graphics a little bit. The truly great games IMO have both though, for the most part .
Some would say Bethesda's Morrowind was one of these for it's time.
Graphics matter.
But I'm willing to look past graphics if the gameplay is solid.
Or the population is large enough...
currently playing: DDO, AOC, WoT, P101
I can still enjoy WoW because the top notch art style transcends the dated graphics. And the gameplay is solid and it has decent population.
I have a question for the OP, or anyone who want's to answer, that's related to the topic...
In your opinion, What MMO has the best Graphics, and which one out there has the best feature set? or even the best combination of the two?
Yes it does, just as any other aspect of a game does. The more accurate question might be, does the poorer graphics override the WWIIOL's positive aspects? Or is it good enough to not put you off realizing there has to be compromise for the large view distances?
Graphics matter because if you asked the playerbase if they would want better graphics with no penalties, who wouldn't say yes. Or would people not mind going to minecraft level of graphics (if it didn't matter, shouldn't be a problem).
It's all relative.
BTW. A single pic isn't a test as with almost any game you can pick and choose what shows up best. WWIIOL can look super, some of the tank damage can turn up looking beautiful (love the holes in tanks heh). But can also look poor at longer range as they drop down to basically square blocks. Why I always like the higher power optics, not just for better combat, but it actually looks better with you seeing the damage model etc.
No this is a good looking game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkkQW15x4KA
So much crap, so little quality.
I agree ..I have the first one and it's a blast, but this one looks real good, I may get this one in the future..Lots of good youtube vids for this game too. I wonder if there are any ww2 mods in the works for this , I like modern weapons but the ww2 stuff would be cool with this kind of game.
There is Iron Front: Liberation 1944, technically MOD of Arma 2, though a separate game. Deep missions, co-op gameplay, hard mode etc. IMO, visually look good.
Look at environment http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uvVGgGzETWs
But bad price policy in EU and aplenty bugs on start wasn't good for game health, imho.
I like at 0:40 he talks about maps, that the common BF3 map was Metro. The most close quarter map around and that he didn't want to play CoD in a different engine. Sounds unfortunately, a lot like the modern version of WWIIOL with close spawns. I didn't join WWIIOL to play an close quarters zerf inf game, most people at the time hadn't.
One of the points I've always made. Lots of war games have close combat, you don't want to try and compete with them when your graphics look so much worse let alone the lag, aminations and other close quarter quirks. If they kept it to the longer distances (the big map was there for a reason) they would have competed a lot better by not directly competeing. That's where WWIIOL shined.
When the battlefield got shrunk down, I moved to Red Orchestra for my inf combat. If you're going small map anyway, might as well go small server and get the graphics and animations. Had one shot one kill and balistic drop like WWIIOL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gccu5TuqjoU
Start it at 0:30, 1:40 nice death animation. 2:12 you hear the thumps of arty coming, and then the pain
. It could be almost disturbing, when you shot someone on a roof they would rag doll and slide off. Arty could toss bodies (minus limbs) into the air. Good times heheh
But on the graphics side, at the time these were also dated, just not as much as WWIIOL. But as it was one of the few WWII realistic combat games, you lived with the graphics. So as long as it has other things to offer, graphics aren't everything.
Had tanks 4:20 also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQSkcZn8i3k
Yeah, ARMA2 and the Liberation Mod look awesome.
Try to find a highly populated server.
If you can, point it out to me.
Many people have stopped playing in anticipation of Arma 3 to be released this year. The increased functionality will be awesome. That's how improvements should be made, without destroying the core of the game that attracted players in the first place.
BINGO! BAZINGA!
CRS, take note! You know, for your Axis Zombie Reign Game coming out next.....
Many people have stopped playing in anticipation of Arma 3 to be released this year. The increased functionality will be awesome. That's how improvements should be made, without destroying the core of the game that attracted players in the first place.
I hope they do a better job with Arma3, cuz Arma2 was really buggy and a complete pain to play.
Never had much trouble with Arma2.
I never CTD'd every 10 minutes. I didn't have "enter world" bugs. I didn't deal with lag deaths. The servers were up when I wanted to play. There was no mid map/senario company interference that changed outcomes like magic. There wasn't a smart sharp tongued dev that was talking down to everyone and chasing people away.
There was a few cheaters from time to time. But a secure server took care of that for those that I knew that played alot. China programmers always have a hack, don't they?
And this is where CRS went wrong.
So much crap, so little quality.
By a large extent I favor gameplay over graphics and while WW2OL could be hard on the eyes depending on what you were looking at and at what time of day it was, I never had a huge beef with the graphics. The one thing that made me chuckle was the 16bit banded sunrise and sunset. LOL it was awful but eventually they were able to put in something better.
The one thing I couldn't eve figure out was why they added more haze to the game. At least that's how it appeared to me. Look at this ancient shot of Antwerp.
Now compare it with this one with the added haze layer.
Was it added because it helped with FPS? I dunno but I much preferred the clear shot over the Los Angeles smog one.
If I could add one upgrade to WW2OL it would be higher resolution terrain. Not just textures, but the terrain mesh itself. I think the current is at 250m mesh which is too low for contour elevation maps.
edit: why are my shots showing up only as thumbnails?
For me it depends on the game. Many shooters that I have played have had some impressive graphics for the models and the environments. However, to be honest I did not notice a lot of that ancillary stuff until I had been playing for quite some time or was playing on a slow night. I seemed to be much more honed in on scanning for human looking movement in urban settings, treelines, hedges and so on.
For other games like Diablo III or Shogun 2, I was far more aware of the graphics and how they were employed in the story or campaign. In these cases I was far more cognizant of environment, lighting, environmental effects and so on.
I don't think the current graphics are all that bad. In my opinion it actually looks pretty sharp when the best setting are turned on. I just don't have the system to run the game like that on the live server.
It would be nice if the graphics had more of a polished cinematography look to them, but given that I have read many posts about this game pricing people out of it due to hardware requirements or pricing plans, an upgrade in the graphics may not be advisable at present.
I'm not saying there are not better engines out there that would accomplish that goal. I am saying that I think a significant graphics upgrade to the game would probably require new code for frameworks, how rendering interacts with databse tables, the GIS based world that we play on and so on.
They wouldnt have to sacrifice anything if they had just used a decent engine to start with.
So much crap, so little quality.
What other systems where available in 2000 that could do everything?