Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Is World of Warcraft prove that non-realistic graphics are better?
TheScavenger
Member EpicPosts: 3,321
WoW came out years ago, and sure its had some graphics updates.
However, look at games with realistic graphics. Vanguard Saga of Heroes, Everquest 2 and many others. They look damn ugly, but at release they did look good. Their graphics however did not stand the test of time. Looking back at them, they look terrible. Vanguard came out after WoW and looking at screenshots, it just looks terrible now. Everquest 2 is even worse, and while it came out same time as WoW...it looks a lot more outdated.
I am not talking how GOOD it looks. That is persons opinion. However, realistic MMOs for most part look outdated MUCH quicker than an art style like WoW. WoW many years later still looks beautiful, and looking back at vanilla screenshots still looks great. It does not look outdated.
WoW isn't the only example. Ultima Online, 2d Runescape and Tibia...while yes 2d games. Still look very nice to look at. 2d in general lasts much longer in how good they look, compared to 3d games.
The only exception to this, is any MMO or game on the CryEngine. Look at Crysis 1, and Star Citizen. While Star Citizen is in alpha, it looks absolutely gorgeous. Now look at Crysis 1 (the first one, not the lame console ports released after). Crysis 1 is ancient. Yet I launch it sometimes on steam and...decades later...STILL looks beautiful. A rare example of a realistic graphics/artstyle that looks beautiful years later. CryEngine based games in general looks great even decades/many years later.
However, for most part. 2d or cartoony 3d graphics last far longer in how dated or not they look, compared to a lot of 3d art styles. Just looking at Vanguard and I think how could I ever thought it looked good, and same with EQ2. To make matters worse, EQ2 doesn't just look uglier, but runs worse than WoW and it came out at same time.
Is that prove that 2d and cartoony graphics are actually BETTER economically for developers than aiming for realistic graphics? With the exception if they use CryEngine.
However, look at games with realistic graphics. Vanguard Saga of Heroes, Everquest 2 and many others. They look damn ugly, but at release they did look good. Their graphics however did not stand the test of time. Looking back at them, they look terrible. Vanguard came out after WoW and looking at screenshots, it just looks terrible now. Everquest 2 is even worse, and while it came out same time as WoW...it looks a lot more outdated.
I am not talking how GOOD it looks. That is persons opinion. However, realistic MMOs for most part look outdated MUCH quicker than an art style like WoW. WoW many years later still looks beautiful, and looking back at vanilla screenshots still looks great. It does not look outdated.
WoW isn't the only example. Ultima Online, 2d Runescape and Tibia...while yes 2d games. Still look very nice to look at. 2d in general lasts much longer in how good they look, compared to 3d games.
The only exception to this, is any MMO or game on the CryEngine. Look at Crysis 1, and Star Citizen. While Star Citizen is in alpha, it looks absolutely gorgeous. Now look at Crysis 1 (the first one, not the lame console ports released after). Crysis 1 is ancient. Yet I launch it sometimes on steam and...decades later...STILL looks beautiful. A rare example of a realistic graphics/artstyle that looks beautiful years later. CryEngine based games in general looks great even decades/many years later.
However, for most part. 2d or cartoony 3d graphics last far longer in how dated or not they look, compared to a lot of 3d art styles. Just looking at Vanguard and I think how could I ever thought it looked good, and same with EQ2. To make matters worse, EQ2 doesn't just look uglier, but runs worse than WoW and it came out at same time.
Is that prove that 2d and cartoony graphics are actually BETTER economically for developers than aiming for realistic graphics? With the exception if they use CryEngine.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Comments
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
You say that many years later WoW graphics still look beautiful -but that is only because of their constant upgrades.
For sure those 2004 remnants don't look beautiful anymore, as we can see with some of the remaining 256x256 textures and models that are still in the game. And then Legion graphics aren't old.
My point is, we can't really compare WoW graphics to another game's graphics, because Blizzard raised the bar with every xpack while some other games barely have two content patches a year.
I'm afraid Wildstar won't get old enough to see how well cartoonish/stylish graphics possibly age, perhaps Crowfall will?
I agree that most of the games that looked stunning at release didn't age well.
EQ2's graphics shocked me at release, but are now the main reason why i can't go back to the game anymore. When i played, there was a single guy tinkering with the engine and he had absolutely no idea what he was doing!
AoC is another victim of it's graphics and while still having beautiful environments, to an extend also Lotro is. Rift's visuals were an improvement over WoW at release, today i find them horribly outdated.
So i guess it's all a matter of maintaining your graphics and that is one thing many studios didn't do or couldn't afford to do, while Blizzard could.
1) Lowest Common Denominator. If you want the most people to play your game, then you have to have the most people who are capable of playing your game. That means you need the potato with RAM stuck in it to play as well as the $5,000 monster with SLI Titan X cards.
Catering to the mid-upper range of machinery means you're voluntarily cutting customers from your base.
2) Easier to maintain. If you're going for photorealism, the problem is that the goal posts move every couple of years. Age of Conan was mind blowing when it released, but now it's just average. Play it alongside BDO or Witcher 3 and you'll wonder yourself why you ever thought AoC looked great.
But if you go cartoony, then that's a lasting design choice. You may change how many polygons you use at some point, or update a few shadows or AA every once in a while, but you own the goal posts and they don't move when the technology moves.
3) Consumer costs. WoW graphics can be played on just about anything which means most consumers don't have to upgrade their machines. In fact, I have a friend who is still using the same machine he played WoW on in 2005 without any changes.
When I started playing AoC, I had to buy a new computer that month because it couldn't run those sweet realistic graphics. Not very many people can afford to run out and swap their entire hardware set for one game, so going photorealistic means the customer only has to buy your game, not a new computer to go with it. Thereby increasing the potential customer base.
Now, does any of this mean they are better? Objectively yes, but not subjectively. Personally, I'm not in the lowest common denominator crowd. I can afford to upgrade when games move the goalposts, and I keep on top of the technology. So for me, I prefer as photorealistic as I can find. WoW is god awful ugly to me, and I don't play it for primarily that reason.
If you look back you will find that the initial graphics created for WoW were extremely detailed - forget the colours that was a style choice. These graphics were then reworked employing what Blizzard described as a "big pixel" approach.
From memory for each scene pixels of the "same" colour were merged into a single blob of colour. This process reduced the number of colours used at anyone time (akin to what Cyan did with Myst), it reduced the detail and also the amount of information being processed.
One result being the game ran on low end systems.
I can remember the Mythic CS person responding to a question about why DAoC graphics were not as good as WoW's. Her response was pretty emphatic something like "We've got like 70 people in total whereas Blizzard's art department has about 200".
By definition a cartoon is a simple graphic. There was nothing simple about Blizzard's graphics
Cartoony graphics are good, anime style graphic is good, realistic graphics are good too. The last thing we as gamers should hope for is for publishers to decide one style is best and start making every game in that style.
I generally don't like "cartoony" or stylized graphics. Or I would say that i prefer being more realistic as opposed to looking "drawn".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
In my eyes, the graphical style is very much the Blizzard way, they have been doing it for years.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Ah, a fast food analogy involving MMORPG's. My favorite.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I love realistic graphics and smooth combat animation, attention to detail just enhances my immersion. BDO scenery from the harpy hills blows me away makes me stop what I'm doing. It's amazing how far they've come from then I'm looking forward to when mmo graphics catch up to an rpg (Tomb Raider's Witcher ect.) or the better, I would build a screaming machine for that.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
do we understand the meaning of 'stylized' when it comes into context of periods of time?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Besides how the game look after 7 or more years it is just different, not better.
That game doesn't deserve to succeed at all but the fact it's still doing much worse than WoW is a ray of hope for the gamers of tomorrow.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
When you don't want the truth, you will make up your own truth.
The only problem is that when you deal with photorealism, as render engines get better the older games look more silly in hindsight.
Stylized works are judged more on art and design while with photorealistic works, technology carries way more weight.
Stylized work has the appearance of lasting longer because it comes under less scrunity. It's not expected to be a certain way.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think what Blizzard has shown is that attention to detail does win out. They have their own style, they are religiously adherent to it in everything they do in their game. The graphics and animations are full of little details, which help to emphasize whatever the theme of the area is they are trying to convey. And they are constantly pushing to improve it, using a very conservative and iterative process.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다