World of Warcraft graphics vs. other mmorpg's

Which do you think has the best graphics?

  • World of Warcraft

    Votes: 5 15.2%
  • Guild Wars

    Votes: 11 33.3%
  • Lineage 2

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • Archlord

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I havent played any of the other games.

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • They all suck.

    Votes: 9 27.3%

  • Total voters
    33
Status
Not open for further replies.

supageek

Distinguished
Apr 6, 2007
18
0
18,510
0
A friend of mine and I were talking about how the graphics in world of warcraft was garbage. My friend of course disagreed with me, and he was saying that it was better then alot of the other mmorpg's that are out right now such as guild wars, lineage 2, archlord, etc. I definitely think WoW's graphics is the worst out of all these games. I was just wondering what everyone else was thinking. Any and all feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks.
 

mikeph056

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2007
15
0
18,510
0
The graphics in WoW suck. Lord of the Rings Online has some of, if not the, best graphics of any MMO I have seen. I had a screenshot of Rivendell as my desktop backround (taken with all graphics setting at maximum) and a friend asked me where it was taken, he couldn't tell it wasn't a real picture. Granted he was standing about three feet away at the time...in any case, WoW's graphics suck, I would take EQ1's luclin graphics over WoW and that engine is many years old. At least it doesn't look like a cartoon.
 
G

Guest

Guest
WoW graphics, as far as I'm aware, aren't meant to be really graphically demanding, so that way they can have a larger user base that can play the game. It also ties in with the look of warcraft 3 fairly well too, being cartoony.
 

Gryphyn

Distinguished
May 18, 2006
184
0
18,680
0
I used to play Guild wars, but when I tired of it and I switched to WoW, that was the biggest problem I had. The graphics in GW are way better.
 

supageek

Distinguished
Apr 6, 2007
18
0
18,510
0
Yeah thats what I think too. I cant believe people are actually able to play a game with such crappy graphics. Personally I cant play a game with graphics as bad as wow, with todays graphical advances I dont understand how people are able to play such games with mario brothers like graphics.
 

stemnin

Distinguished
Dec 28, 2006
1,450
0
19,280
0
Never played archlord (I think i seen one screenshot, looked sorta like wow) and lineage. I have both GW and WoW, WoW is just terrible in every-way. MSORPG.
 

cpburns

Distinguished
Aug 28, 2006
239
0
18,680
0
"wah wah wah WoW's graphics suck wah wah wah!" why do i always see this crap? Septic was pretty damn close to the truth. they made the graphics CARTOONY on purpose. first off, it fits with warcraft 2 and 3's legacy of appearance. second, they're not highly demanding. third, the cartoony style allows them to "live" longer than other games which attempt more photorealism. are you going to want to look at EQ2's or LOTRO's graphics in two more years? i hope not. EQ2 looks bad enough as is, and runs too slow. GW is based off an enhanced 4 year old engine (UE2). GW still looks pretty, but it is going to start failing graphically very soon. it attempts to look photorealistic on only 500-2000 polygons per model still. WoW doesn't chase that ideal. it looks cartoony, and thus cannot be said to be photorealistic and therefore outdated looking. it'll take longer for its graphical appeal to fade. oh, and seriously, if you've never thought WoW could do anything pretty, go camp out in Un'Goro when it's raining, or Tanaris during a sand-storm.
 

Gryphyn

Distinguished
May 18, 2006
184
0
18,680
0
I understand what you're saying, cpburns, and know full well why WoW's graphics are what they are. It makes a lot of economical sense to have graphics that range low enough that just about anyone can play the game. And while I really enjoy the quality of the graphics in Guild Wars, and I miss that quality, it is the depth of the gameplay that chose WoW over GW for me. I play games with my wife, and we enjoy meeting people as we wander around the game world, which you can't do in GW, with its instanced environments.

However, I have a fairly high end system, and would love it if the graphics to WoW could be updated to take advantage of this. By no means should they lose the existing low end, and thus alienate users, but if they could raise the high end, that would be fantastic, and that doesn't just mean moving towards photorealistic.

I agree, there is beauty to be found in the game, but it could be so much better, and I'm all for that.
 

stemnin

Distinguished
Dec 28, 2006
1,450
0
19,280
0


lol, ive got a 46 mage in tanaris and never seen the wondrous sandstorms. I always liked Thunder Bluff, and the outside of IF when you fly towards it.

Arenanet has been improving GW since the beginning with the new chapters (and the expansion), the game now requires SM1.1 and some more pixel shaders or something LOL... you'd be surprised how many players don't have that.. there's alot of intel chip users...
 

Ananan

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2007
646
0
18,990
2
I'll take performance over graphics in an MMORPG. My desktop was out last Summer for a while and I picked up WoW to play on my laptop with 200M Xpress graphics.

I have to say - it ran very well; no graphical glitches or stutters at all and looked pretty (if not very) good.

I save my desire for cutting edge graphics for single player games.
 

spuddyt

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2007
2,114
0
19,780
0
cutting edge graphics.... DAMN YOU you made me think of my longing for Crysis
 

triggersix

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2007
14
0
18,510
0


HAHA... this is the dumbest thing I've heard all week. What the hell are you talking about? I play DS lite games all the time that look 'crappier' than games that were out for the PC 10 years ago, yet I still enjoy them way more than a bunch of 'cutting edge' games on the PC or any other platform today. Graphics DO NOT matter, as long as they do what is required to enjoy the gameplay of a game. If you are look only for visuals, you are in the wrong place, thats what the movie theaters are there for, sadly. Go watch transformers or something you baby.

I played WoW and I played Guildwars... both have their merits but no one will say that Guildwars is over all the better game, unless that monthly fee actually means something to them, which is obviously not really the case if 9 million people are paying it every month. I doubt that Guildwars would have those kind of numbers of players even if it were completely free (ie. given away at the store).

Comparing the carefully thought out world in WoW to mario brothers is probably the smartest thing you said, if unwittingly. Every single object and curve in the world of warcraft landscape is there for a reason, there is barely a virtual square yard that exists that isnt of some tactical or story driven benefit. Mario games are the same, every platform is in that position for a good reason. Compare that with a game like far cry and you start to realize, the game design that went into each is not even comparable. Some games are simply better made than others.
 

spuddyt

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2007
2,114
0
19,780
0
I wonder how much money WoW makes every month... lets see 9000000 x however much that monthly fee is......
 

spuddyt

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2007
2,114
0
19,780
0

now look, I don't mind people saying that gameplay is the most important thing in a game, but you can't compare farcry and mario, its like saying "which is better, a strawberry, or a steel pole, they are both completely different, and also the fact that everything is in a place for a reason annoys me, its too linear, unlike farcry where the player chooses where to go, and not the game designer
 

triggersix

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2007
14
0
18,510
0



True, I wasn't really attempting to directly compare the two, just the fact that one has a high level of game design, testing, and thought put into it, while the other is obviously created to look pretty and the level design and layout are an afterthought. A lot of spots in farcry were so rediculously hard because they obviously werent thoroughly play tested that I almost gave up many time, and have several friends who didn't even get half way through the game because it was almost 'broken' in many ways.

Anyway, far cry was just one example of a pretty game that while it does something new and ground breaking in the visuals department, sacrifices a lot in other departments. I think really the player base for a game can be used to prove its worth, not in every case and not for everyone, but generally, if a game is well made and fun to play, it shows in the fan following. Blizzard games generally have a huge fan base because they are expertly made. EA games have a temporary following because they're pretty but they're like ford vehicles, nice to look at when they're new, but they fall apart quickly under scrutiny.
 

triggersix

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2007
14
0
18,510
0



This isn't really true though, yes Mario is linear, but it could never be said WoW was linear, sure you have to complete quests, but you dont HAVE to do anything in WoW. Good level design does not always mean you have to sacrifice freedom, but when you do try for that level of polish, you need to be fairly sure you will get a return on your investment. I suppose thats why games like far cry cant really afford the additional time that would cost, they arent looking at a return on investment of $15x 9,000,000 per month.

Thats why games like HL2 which are fairly rich in both graphics and game play take SOO damn long to make (other than the fact that valve development is shoddy at best). Bioware games are a good example. Both KOTOR and Jade Empires use a similar and annoying way of limiting your freedom in their environment, but to get the level of gameplay they do out of their games, while being able to create both a visually good looking and long enough rpg experience, they have to sacrifice some player freedom. If you compare Baldurs Gate 2 to Kotor, you realize Bioware has had to make a truly open ended game into a game where you are basically led along by the story line. Theyre both great games, but I much prefer BG2 because I can do basically anything with 30 different character classes to Kotors very few options and better graphic feel.
 

supageek

Distinguished
Apr 6, 2007
18
0
18,510
0
HAHA... this is the dumbest thing I've heard all week. What the hell are you talking about? I play DS lite games all the time that look 'crappier' than games that were out for the PC 10 years ago, yet I still enjoy them way more than a bunch of 'cutting edge' games on the PC or any other platform today. Graphics DO NOT matter, as long as they do what is required to enjoy the gameplay of a game. If you are look only for visuals, you are in the wrong place, thats what the movie theaters are there for, sadly. Go watch transformers or something you baby.
Well everyone has their preferences and reasons for playing a certain game. You for instance may enjoy a game just because of the gameplay, but for myself I'd rather play a game with good graphics that I can look at and saw wow. The only time you'll be saying wow while playing wow is right when you start the game and say WOW this game looks sooo shitty it makes atari games look good. Now just because you enjoy the primitive graphics and gameplay of wow doesnt mean everyone does. Besides read the topic, it says GRAPHICS not gameplay.
 

stemnin

Distinguished
Dec 28, 2006
1,450
0
19,280
0
WoW monthly fees vary from country to country, i believe it's 10c/mth in karkandland, just haft to play and dodge nadespam.

I played bejeweled endlessly on my palm. It was fun, till I broke it.
 

triggersix

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2007
14
0
18,510
0


I agree, a lot of people do play games solely based on graphics. Its very similar to those people who will only go to see movies with a lot of explosions and pretty cg. Those people are called teenagers and dumbasses. Sorry, but if you cant appreciate a game becasue its FUN, you're missing the point entirely.
 

CafeBabe

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2007
3
0
18,510
0
Before I got a crappy machine, and I was able to play WOW at low settings. Later I got a dual core and better graphics (still not very good, 7600, and 31 to 70 fps everything max), and with the maxed settings the game does look better, but I am sure it can be improved more. If only Bliz z could make the tree in Nagrand look better :), or provide some anti-aliasing...

No matter what, I still love WOW, because my friends there. However if they could make some solo able dungeons, that will be even better. Sometimes I enjoy tackle some hard ones alone.


--------------------------------------
http://wowpanda.blogspot.com/
 

spuddyt

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2007
2,114
0
19,780
0
I've never been able to get into an mmo of any sort, it just doesn't seem to attract me as more than a gimmick, I just care about me and me alone
 

supageek

Distinguished
Apr 6, 2007
18
0
18,510
0


The same could be said about people that play games just because it's popular. Now how would it not be fun if the graphics are really good, it makes you want to play more of it just because looking at the graphics is entertaining enough. You are perhaps what people would call a "fanboy", it clearly shows that you are, calling people dumbasses? Besides what makes a game fun? As for myself if the graphics is not half decent I wont even attempt to try the game. If your definition of fun is playing games with prehistoric graphics thats fine theres no problem there, all I said was that the graphics in WoW is crap thats all.
 

pous

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2007
498
0
18,780
0
Hmm MMO's never had great graphics in my opinion... but the gameplay (and team play) is where it's at for me... I love doing multi-player raids/quests/anything in general.

I don't play games for graphics, I play for entertainment ^_^

Although I am looking for some graphically "pretty" games to play on my new system... Q6600 with 8800GTS 640.

Anyway, that's my 2cents
 

triggersix

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2007
14
0
18,510
0


In the case of movies, I'd agree with you, popular doesnt necessarily mean good. However, with games that's not usually the case. If you're going to spend weeks or years with a game, its probably REALLY good. I have never spent more than a few hours with a game thats really pretty and yet totally sucks. And believe me, I've played thousands of games, I've got a pretty good idea what makes a good game at this point.

Fanboy? That cuts deep *end sarcasm*. If a game deserves credit, I give it credit, if that means I like blizzard games, I think that means I like good games, not that I'm a fanboy. In fact I dont much like warcraft 2 or 3. I would never have picked up WoW either unless about 10 friends all started during the beta and got me in on it. But none of those decisions were based on graphics, they were based on the back stories of the game and the fact that the mmo genre wasnt attractive to me until I gave it a chance.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.