Then you would know that MMO's are "limited" more than single player games due to the need to render 10's and 100's of REAL player characters.
That is a fallacy, MMO use similar occlusion and backface culling code as single player games, they are capable of having the same graphics. EQ's graphics are proof of that, it was one of the best looking games at that time, of all games, not just MMO!
Then you would know that MMO's are "limited" more than single player games due to the need to render 10's and 100's of REAL player characters.
That is a fallacy, MMO use similar occlusion and backface culling code as single player games, they are capable of having the same graphics. EQ's graphics are proof of that, it was one of the best looking games at that time, of all games, not just MMO!
That is a fallacy, MMO use similar occlusion and backface culling code as single player games, they are capable of having the same graphics. EQ's graphics are proof of that, it was one of the best looking games at that time, of all games, not just MMO!
The OP is based off of a flawed, delusional, and contradictory premise.
It's flawed and contradictory because they are basically stating that an old game (EQ) looks better than three newer games therefore EQ is a better game. The visual appeal is subjective. The older rendering technology is not and is inferior. The OP contradicts themselves later in the thread by stating that they would play a new game if it were uglier but had the superior gameplay of EQ. But that wasn't part of the original point and not a valid argument. It's a logical no no and doesn't support the already flawed premise.
The OP is delusional because due to their emotional attachment to EQ their projecting their wish as a fact and obtusely dismissing the counter-examples and popular opinion to the contrary. That doesn't invalidate their preference but it does completely invalidate their opinion in the thread title.
It's no surprise you are spewing more useless diatribe. All hail the bane of EQ fans everywhere Mr.Torvaldr. He just can't help himself, can he?
Ok, I know the second one(THE BEST GAME EVER), third one(age of conan) and the last one(High road...Neverwinter right?).
Besides, it's not how it looks what's important. It's how it plays what's important. And the second one is the king in the both sections IMO IMO(double for Maximum clarity)!
1st was Archeage, Third was Black Desert, and sure graphics are only a small part of what makes a game a game. Just a few examples of modern graphics.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It's because everyone with some skill at game design is trying to jump in and claim a slice of the pie ever since MMO's became such a big deal world wide.
There are absolutely gorgeous F2P titles out there like some people have already said. You might as well go and make a thread "Why are all RPGs so fugly compared to FFVII?!" and link a couple of Indie games from Steam with 1% of Final Fantasy's budget. xD
Can't have much skill if the games end up looking like 16 bit games. Much too many people making games who don't have any idea what they are doing.
Fixed it for you so others could see the person's whole quote. You're welcome
Tera is F2P and is arguably one of the best looking MMO's on the market right now.
Rift is F2P and while I don't care for the character models, many of the zones look amazing.
SWTOR is F2P and while the art style is questionable for some, the game does look really nice and is holding up well.
Just a few games off the top of my head but I'm sure there are plenty more examples out there.
Tera is f2p and i played it and looks awful.Those other 2 were not f2p only became that way after struggling as every game has after a few months.
SWTOR odes not use high end textures they would be similar to EQ1 only different compression and available size of the original texture size.
However EQ1 is very old,i would games to hold up to EQ2 which is pretty good in textures and lighting just badly implemented taxing everyone's machine.
Quality textures would be a game like FFXIV which is not f2p,NOTHING in the genre compares to FFXIV for textures and quality of graphics.However combat and design is not done well in that game.
SO there we have not one single COMPLETE game giving us high end gaming along with graphics.
DO we have the technology?Sure do.
DO we have the machines?Sure do
DO develoeprs have the ability,know how?Sure do
Then why don't we have quality gaming>>>>Business+profit >quality
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
@OP, I bet your toaster have problem running the followings:
Blade & Soul, C9, Vindictus, Revelation, Kingdom Under Fire II, Path of Exile...
If non RPG F2P, Warframe, Blacklight Retribution, Hawken...
Those are among I remember I played. There are tons of F2P title out there that looks great. Still, visual alone don't make up for somewhat boring / repetitive game play no matter what business model it uses.
Seriously, go play your game. What are you starting this kind of thread for?
Originally posted by Amjoco The pay model has nothing to do with how a game looks.
Yes it does, it is evident on PC, on indie console, and on mobile platform. The F2P business model that doesn't require box sales anymore to make money, relies on mass saturation of low quality MMO to make money. Many F2P companies have up to 30 MMO.
It is most evident on consoles where disc based games pour massive budgets into single titles and have much better graphics compared to indie / steam games where single companies often control 200+ games.
Originally posted by Amjoco The pay model has nothing to do with how a game looks.
Yes it does, it is evident on PC, on indie console, and on mobile platform. The F2P business model that doesn't require box sales anymore to make money, relies on mass saturation of low quality MMO to make money. Many F2P companies have up to 30 MMO.
It is most evident on consoles where disc based games pour massive budgets into single titles and have much better graphics compared to indie / steam games where single companies often control 200+ games.
F2P = market full of mediocre MMO.
P2P = market full of mediocre MMOs that go F2P, your point?
Originally posted by Amjoco The pay model has nothing to do with how a game looks.
Yes it does, it is evident on PC, on indie console, and on mobile platform. The F2P business model that doesn't require box sales anymore to make money, relies on mass saturation of low quality MMO to make money. Many F2P companies have up to 30 MMO.
It is most evident on consoles where disc based games pour massive budgets into single titles and have much better graphics compared to indie / steam games where single companies often control 200+ games.
F2P = market full of mediocre MMO.
You seem to have a major problem with grasping 2 completely different things and are trying to turn them into the same thing. Payment models (such as subscription vs F2P) are a whole separate thing from whether or not a game is made by an indie developer or a large company with a big budget (aka AAA).
One has nothing to do with the other, and only one of those really has any bearing on the ability to produce high quality graphics.
Whether a game is made by a AAA dev or an indie dev has nothing to do with the payment model. There have been both Subscription and F2P games made by both types of companies. Having a subscription, or not having one, is no indicator of whether or not game will have good graphics. Plenty of games on both sides have come out with both good and bad graphics.
Where you see a difference in graphical quality is usually with a AAA dev with more money to invest in making the game look better. Even then it still doesn't ensure great graphics, but it is more likely. Unfortunately though these games may look pretty but they generally tend to be unoriginal and boring. On the other hand indie devs are more willing to experiment with new ideas and try out unusual concepts, it just doesnt look as pretty most of the time.
Wow this thread was biased as fuck. please never become a judge. It would be the fucking downfall of society and might as well just solve problems with a coin.
Comments
and you commented too
Then you would know that MMO's are "limited" more than single player games due to the need to render 10's and 100's of REAL player characters.
That is a fallacy, MMO use similar occlusion and backface culling code as single player games, they are capable of having the same graphics. EQ's graphics are proof of that, it was one of the best looking games at that time, of all games, not just MMO!
Sure it is !!!
you are trying to one-up my 1 exclamation mark!
It's no surprise you are spewing more useless diatribe. All hail the bane of EQ fans everywhere Mr.Torvaldr. He just can't help himself, can he?
Haters will be haters.
1st was Archeage, Third was Black Desert, and sure graphics are only a small part of what makes a game a game. Just a few examples of modern graphics.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Fixed it for you so others could see the person's whole quote. You're welcome
Smile
Tera is f2p and i played it and looks awful.Those other 2 were not f2p only became that way after struggling as every game has after a few months.
SWTOR odes not use high end textures they would be similar to EQ1 only different compression and available size of the original texture size.
However EQ1 is very old,i would games to hold up to EQ2 which is pretty good in textures and lighting just badly implemented taxing everyone's machine.
Quality textures would be a game like FFXIV which is not f2p,NOTHING in the genre compares to FFXIV for textures and quality of graphics.However combat and design is not done well in that game.
SO there we have not one single COMPLETE game giving us high end gaming along with graphics.
DO we have the technology?Sure do.
DO we have the machines?Sure do
DO develoeprs have the ability,know how?Sure do
Then why don't we have quality gaming>>>>Business+profit >quality
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
@OP, I bet your toaster have problem running the followings:
Blade & Soul, C9, Vindictus, Revelation, Kingdom Under Fire II, Path of Exile...
If non RPG F2P, Warframe, Blacklight Retribution, Hawken...
Those are among I remember I played. There are tons of F2P title out there that looks great. Still, visual alone don't make up for somewhat boring / repetitive game play no matter what business model it uses.
Seriously, go play your game. What are you starting this kind of thread for?
Yes it does, it is evident on PC, on indie console, and on mobile platform. The F2P business model that doesn't require box sales anymore to make money, relies on mass saturation of low quality MMO to make money. Many F2P companies have up to 30 MMO.
It is most evident on consoles where disc based games pour massive budgets into single titles and have much better graphics compared to indie / steam games where single companies often control 200+ games.
F2P = market full of mediocre MMO.
P2P = market full of mediocre MMOs that go F2P, your point?
Your bias is clouding facts.
You seem to have a major problem with grasping 2 completely different things and are trying to turn them into the same thing. Payment models (such as subscription vs F2P) are a whole separate thing from whether or not a game is made by an indie developer or a large company with a big budget (aka AAA).
One has nothing to do with the other, and only one of those really has any bearing on the ability to produce high quality graphics.
Whether a game is made by a AAA dev or an indie dev has nothing to do with the payment model. There have been both Subscription and F2P games made by both types of companies. Having a subscription, or not having one, is no indicator of whether or not game will have good graphics. Plenty of games on both sides have come out with both good and bad graphics.
Where you see a difference in graphical quality is usually with a AAA dev with more money to invest in making the game look better. Even then it still doesn't ensure great graphics, but it is more likely. Unfortunately though these games may look pretty but they generally tend to be unoriginal and boring. On the other hand indie devs are more willing to experiment with new ideas and try out unusual concepts, it just doesnt look as pretty most of the time.
o_O thought it was dragons prophet or something~ toss that into the fire
just a bad screenshot xD
/facepalm to this whole thread. If you could sell the amount of flawed logic in this thread, someone would be very rich right now.
Must rebuild faith in humanity..
Oh TERA.... decent game, just the quests are sooooo boooooooring~~~
fun to read a successful troll.