Tendo City

Some people don't understand that a game's beauty can be judged by more then how many polygons it's pushing or by how many new graphical foozles it has. That and the point that how good a game looks is compleatly subjective.

Oh and I have one other little thing to mention: BETA'S STARTED!!!

No email for me yet. :(

I'll leave you with this hilarious yet disturbing image:

I know its's subjective (I think he said that as a reason to ignore it...) he has just shown a lack of understanding of that point all along. It's like 'okay it might have okay artwork but it's technically so awful!' As if that makes the artwork worse or less important or something. I don't really get it.

The true is though, with a good graphics engine, WoW would look a lot better.

Great Rumbler Wrote:The true is though, with a good graphics engine, WoW would look a lot better.

There's nothing wrong with the graphics engine. Blizzard are purposely keeping things low-poly so people who don't have a bleeding edge gaming rig can play the game too.

My favorite thing about WoW's graphics is the use of color.



Look at that background. Simply brilliant.

Bleeding edge? What, is that some cute twist on the cutting edge expression, or is it some British one?

Cutting edge a better one for you DJ? :)

And GR it'd make the game have more polys but it wouldn't really matter as much as you suggest. For one as Smoke says Blizz is trying to get this able to run on a midrange system and for them what we see here is too much and it'd have to be turned down probably... only a relative few could run it if it looked much better and it doesn't have much of a point if you're going for a big market. And anyway it looks really nice... sure you could add more polys but this is plenty for their art style to shine and more isn't necessary. Oh if they did it I'd like it (though with my videocard I couldn't have any chance of SEEING it even if I did get the game), but I don't see it as a flaw.

Quote:Exactly! As I said, Art > Technical. The main problem in this "debate" is making OB1 understand that I THINK ART > TECHNICAL... it's like he thinks it's absurd or something, I don't get it...

OB1's latest comment there that he thinks that saying the graphics engine is poor ends the debate irrevocably proves that after 7 pages he still doesn't understand that amazingly simple point I have said to him about five hundred times. And it's REALLY getting old.

Quote:I know its's subjective (I think he said that as a reason to ignore it...) he has just shown a lack of understanding of that point all along. It's like 'okay it might have okay artwork but it's technically so awful!' As if that makes the artwork worse or less important or something. I don't really get it.

Moron, I understand your retarded argument but like I stated ten fucking billion times, since art is subjective you can only compare the two games on an objective level if it's purely technical.

Quote:Some people don't understand that a game's beauty can be judged by more then how many polygons it's pushing or by how many new graphical foozles it has. That and the point that how good a game looks is compleatly subjective.

No kidding, that's why I used a more objective way to compare the graphics. I never said anything bad about the art, just that on a technical level the graphics are underwhelming.

Quote:And GR it'd make the game have more polys but it wouldn't really matter as much as you suggest. For one as Smoke says Blizz is trying to get this able to run on a midrange system and for them what we see here is too much and it'd have to be turned down probably... only a relative few could run it if it looked much better and it doesn't have much of a point if you're going for a big market. And anyway it looks really nice... sure you could add more polys but this is plenty for their art style to shine and more isn't necessary. Oh if they did it I'd like it (though with my videocard I couldn't have any chance of SEEING it even if I did get the game), but I don't see it as a flaw.

Yes and Commander Keen will also play really well even on a super low-end machine, but that's not what we're talking about. On a technical level WOW's graphics are pretty bad.

Quote:Moron, I understand your retarded argument but like I stated ten fucking billion times, since art is subjective you can only compare the two games on an objective level if it's purely technical.

And as I stated a billion times, what we're talking about is how good the game looks and the technical arguement is far less important! You are so stupid... calling graphics that look this great "bad" is something I will NEVER accept. Your calling my arguement of 'art > technical' "retarded" proves how you just don't get it...

And as I said before, you may not directly attack the art but making this big of a fuss about the "technical" side makes me far, far more than suspicious of why you do. And it's not because you like the art so much that you wish it was better.

Oh, and the point that it will "run" on a lower-end machine CANNOT be ignored. What, does everyone have P4 3ghz machines with 1GB of RAM and a Radeon 9800 Pro? Erm, NO! Not even CLOSE! Blizz wants this to RUN on an average, or even lower-end, machine. That is crucial here. Like look at Lineage II or EverQuest II... there's no way in the WORLD it'll run well on a average computer! WoW will. Simple as that. Far more people will see the game and its beauty.

Like I bet even MY graphics card could handle it... if I turned down the options enough... as I have well learned, while my CPU is still fast enough (1.5ghz) and 384mb ram is fine for now, a 32mb geforce2 just doesn't cut it... Beyond Good & Evil is ... erm, not exactly fluid. :D Rayman 3 is a bit better but also slow... I knew they would be, because of my bad graphcis card, but there isn't much I can do other than turn down some graphics options...

You're an absolute moron, ABF. You refuse to listen to anyone but that stupid voice inside your head. On a technical level WoW is not impressive. And yes performance has nothing to do with this because we're talking about which game has the most impressive graphics, not which game runs the best. Like I said, Commander Keen can run on the crappiest of machines, so I guess by your definition it's more graphically impressive than anything else.

Umm, for Keen to do that I'd have to think that it has the best artwork anywhere which, despite how much I love the series, I would never say. So no. You are right that for technical what a computer can do isn't important, but for the "real world" what a computer can do and the art styles are more important than raw technical power. So your insistance on only talking about technical is stupid.

You just said that WoW is super impressive because it can run on a crappy PC. So I guess that means that Far Cry isn't as graphically impressive since it takes a more powerful PC to run, right? That's what you're saying!

No I didn't say that WoW is impressive because it can run on my PC but that Blizzard designed the game so that it WOULD run on computers that are even WORSE than mine! Difference there! They did it so that more people could play the game and see it. If that means a slight cut in the engine, so be it. As I said most people won't notice the different anyway... :)

And as I've said a thousand times the artwork and presentation (it is BLIZZARD. That means superb presentation and interface, great gameplay, great depth, but not too hard to learn, and so much more...) make your concern irrelevant anyway.

It is in no way whatsoever irrelevant. Yoshi's Island also has great artwork but if you were to compare its graphics to say, Doom 3 (which has shitty artwork), Doom 3 obviously wins.

And IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM THEY DEVELOPED IT FOR!! Your argument is incredibly retarded, ABF. So if a developer makes a game with crappy PCs in mind, the game really isn't ugly because it was intentional?

OB1 Wrote:You just said that WoW is super impressive because it can run on a crappy PC. So I guess that means that Far Cry isn't as graphically impressive since it takes a more powerful PC to run, right? That's what you're saying!

Where exactly did he say that? I think what we're both trying to say is that if Blizzard wants this game to have mass-market appeal then they can't have the requirements be too high. Most people don't go out and buy a new graphics card every 6 months. It doesn't have anything to do with it being "super impressive". It's just an explanation for why the graphics aren't technically impressive.

But it doesn't really matter because the game looks beautiful as it is. This isn't a console game with standardized hardware, it doesn't have to have bleeding edge graphics to be good looking.

I don't know why we're arguing about the graphics anway. What matters is that World of Warcraft is going to bitch slap every other MMO out there and coming out in the near future in the gameplay department.

Quote:I don't know why we're arguing about the graphics anway. What matters is that World of Warcraft is going to bitch slap every other MMO out there and coming out in the near future in the gameplay department.

I know. Blizzard excels at gameplay, not graphics. They never have the best graphics. They have among the best artwork, and gameplay, but graphics and innovation? Maybe not. But is that so important? They innovate some and use good graphics, as good as they think they can when they remember their goal.

Which as Smoke says is making something playable by a lot of people. OB1 this is the REAL WORLD. If they made it in a vacuum of course it'd only run in a max-spec machine! But they can't do that. They want it to RUN on PCs.

Quote:And IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM THEY DEVELOPED IT FOR!! Your argument is incredibly retarded, ABF. So if a developer makes a game with crappy PCs in mind, the game really isn't ugly because it was intentional?

It's not ugly because Blizzard's artwork, as always, blows away the competition... the graphics engine is okay, but with the art from anyone else it'd look pretty bad. But with Blizzard's artists? It looks fantastic. And that is what matters. Not your idiotic complaint about poly count.

Quote:But it doesn't really matter because the game looks beautiful as it is. This isn't a console game with standardized hardware, it doesn't have to have bleeding edge graphics to be good looking.

According to OB1 it does, because all of our arguements against it are irrelevant!

Bah, who cares about what a modern mid/low end PC can actually do? That's irrelevant! They should have made a requirement of having a $3000 PC to be able to play the game, right? Nothing less could ever make you happy I'm sure!

I'll take the graphics I can play, and the art style that is awesome, over technically superior games with worse art (this is of course ignoring gameplay which is BY FAR the most important factor -- and where of course Blizzard blows everyone else away...) every day.

But hey I'm weird because I'm (and the other 99% of the population) not as obsessive about graphics quality as you are. SO sorry to actually have the nerve to say that games with art I like have good graphics no matter if they're The Lost Vikings!

Now you say something about 'if they released that now...' I'd say 'oldschool graphics' and look at the gameplay, like anyone else should. :)

WoW is of course quite different from THAT arguement. In this case WoW has gameplay features equalling or surpassing everything else on the market, of course. Which makes your arguement worse, I'd say...

I thought this was a Nintendo forum, where we believed in gameplay over graphics.

What I've seen of WoW is pretty sweet anyway, at least I think so. I don't care if the models are a little blocky or they don't have the latest "cool" graphic buzzword technique going on. Have you seen the atmosphere of the Night Elf forests? droool. All the places I've seen look great. I'll take great art design over poly counts any day. And I've heard the animation is amazing. Warcraft 3 wasn't a super beautiful game either. It's gonna be an awesome game, and I bet it will look a lot nicer in action than in screens.

I know what you mean, but I think you meant to say WC3 wasn't super impressive technically, but was still very pretty. Wow, I think I assumed a LOT from that alone, but I'm assuming you meant that considering what you said just before.

I agree as well. So does Penny Arcade, and they are artists. You hold it above your head, and it's ART! Penny Arcade... They know things.

It's Tendo City, A Nintendo forum (well, it's kinda become general discussion now, but that's what we CLAIM the forum is about :D) that values gameplay over graphics, but have you read the chats on some of the fanboy message boards at GameFAQs?

Quote:Where exactly did he say that? I think what we're both trying to say is that if Blizzard wants this game to have mass-market appeal then they can't have the requirements be too high. Most people don't go out and buy a new graphics card every 6 months. It doesn't have anything to do with it being "super impressive". It's just an explanation for why the graphics aren't technically impressive.

But it doesn't really matter because the game looks beautiful as it is. This isn't a console game with standardized hardware, it doesn't have to have bleeding edge graphics to be good looking.

I don't know why we're arguing about the graphics anway. What matters is that World of Warcraft is going to bitch slap every other MMO out there and coming out in the near future in the gameplay department.

And I'm sure it will, but that's not what this debate it about. I'm also sure that if they wanted to, they could have made it look better, but again that is not what we're talking about. I'm talking about the end result, how the game looks on a technical level. ABF does not understand that. You do not understand that, and it seems as though LL and DJ don't understand what this debate is about (which is excusable since you three just popped into this debate without knowing what it's about and simply made your own assumptions). ABF is like a flower trying to comprehend a Stanley Kubrick movie. It's simply impossible for him to understand what this debate it about. It is not about gameplay, it is not about art. It's about how good the WoW graphics engines are. And that answer is "not very good". END OF FREAKIN DEBATE.

I just felt like posting something since this is about WoW, and I know it isn't what you guys are going on about. But I did it anyway.

....

ok...

Quote:I thought this was a Nintendo forum, where we believed in gameplay over graphics.

He tries to deny it but given how he acts OB1 sure looks like he disagrees with that one!

Quote:What I've seen of WoW is pretty sweet anyway, at least I think so. I don't care if the models are a little blocky or they don't have the latest "cool" graphic buzzword technique going on. Have you seen the atmosphere of the Night Elf forests? droool. All the places I've seen look great. I'll take great art design over poly counts any day. And I've heard the animation is amazing. Warcraft 3 wasn't a super beautiful game either. It's gonna be an awesome game, and I bet it will look a lot nicer in action than in screens.

Watch out, that's almost exactly what I said on page one that got OB1 started on how bad the graphics are, LL!

Anyway, yeah, doesn't it? I like the NE best in WC3 and their stuff looks coolest in WoW too... it just looks amazing. Exactly like I'd expect the NE areas to look like... :) Oh, by the way, just like in WC3 my least favorite is the Orcs/Tauren... I don't know, but I just don't like them nearly as much and their cities don't interest me as much as the others...

Quote:And I'm sure it will, but that's not what this debate it about. I'm also sure that if they wanted to, they could have made it look better, but again that is not what we're talking about. I'm talking about the end result, how the game looks on a technical level. ABF does not understand that. You do not understand that, and it seems as though LL and DJ don't understand what this debate is about (which is excusable since you three just popped into this debate without knowing what it's about and simply made your own assumptions). ABF is like a flower trying to comprehend a Stanley Kubrick movie. It's simply impossible for him to understand what this debate it about. It is not about gameplay, it is not about art. It's about how good the WoW graphics engines are. And that answer is "not very good". END OF FREAKIN DEBATE.

Wrong. OB1, this "debate" is about how I (and, evidently, Smoke, LL, and DJ) all think what we've said about the graphics in WoW. You disagree and think that because they're technically not on top of the world they are bad. Evidently, you are a fool... as LL says, shouldn't at least THIS forum disagree with that incorrect assumption? Sad...

Look, OB1, you started this "debate" when I said that the game has great graphics -- essentially the same line as DJ, Smoke, and LL. Your idiotic arguement that because it doesn't have the best technical engine it doesn't have good graphics is so foolish that I still can't figure out how you manage to keep saying it.. and saying that you don't like Warcraft's art...

I know I've said it many times and you deny it but I just cannot see any way you could complain about the engine unless you disliked the art. It's just not possible.

Quote:I just felt like posting something since this is about WoW, and I know it isn't what you guys are going on about. But I did it anyway.

I'd say that's EXACTLY what the "debate" is about! The problem is OB1 has his own bizarre idea of what we're arguing that no one else on this forum can understand... THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE TECHNICAL QUALITY! IT'S ABOUT THE OVERALL LOOK! SO IT'S ARTISTIC AND NOT EASILY QUANTIFIABLE. SO? WHO CARES? THAT'S WHAT MATTERS IDIOT!

And as I said the technical quality isn't exactly way behind the field like you suggest. Quite the opposite.

Oh, OB1, 4-1 now, looks like you're a bit outnumbered on this one... can't bring out your standard "EVERYONE agrees with me and you are so dumb!"...

Quote:He tries to deny it but given how he acts OB1 sure looks like he disagrees with that one!

Brian, you are a moron. Read my post and shut up.

Quote:Watch out, that's almost exactly what I said on page one that got OB1 started on how bad the graphics are, LL!

Anyway, yeah, doesn't it? I like the NE best in WC3 and their stuff looks coolest in WoW too... it just looks amazing. Exactly like I'd expect the NE areas to look like... Oh, by the way, just like in WC3 my least favorite is the Orcs/Tauren... I don't know, but I just don't like them nearly as much and their cities don't interest me as much as the others...

Amazing in a completely non-technical way, perhaps.

Quote:Wrong. OB1, this "debate" is about how I (and, evidently, Smoke, LL, and DJ) all think what we've said about the graphics in WoW. You disagree and think that because they're technically not on top of the world they are bad. Evidently, you are a fool... as LL says, shouldn't at least THIS forum disagree with that incorrect assumption? Sad...

ABF, you are the biggest idiot on the face of the planet, toppling even the mighty ASM and Darunia. LL, Smoke, and DJ have no idea what this debate is about, so they foolishly join it thinking it's about something else.
WOW's graphics are poor on a technical level, compared to modern games.

Quote:Look, OB1, you started this "debate" when I said that the game has great graphics -- essentially the same line as DJ, Smoke, and LL. Your idiotic arguement that because it doesn't have the best technical engine it doesn't have good graphics is so foolish that I still can't figure out how you manage to keep saying it.. and saying that you don't like Warcraft's art...

Ok again, you are a fucking idiot. I just thought I'd remind you of that since you have a problem remembering stuff. For the last time, WOW has a mediocre engine and poor graphics on a technical level. I don't care whether or not you jack off to the art in the game, that is not what this debate is about. It's about how sucky the engine is ON A TECHNICAL LEVEL. Idiot.
And I never once said that I don't like Warcraft's art, and I've said THIS about two dozen times now, but since you lack any sort of intelligence I have to constantly repeat myself.

Quote:I know I've said it many times and you deny it but I just cannot see any way you could complain about the engine unless you disliked the art. It's just not possible.

This sentence right here pretty much sums up how insanely retarded you are. The graphics engine has NOTHING to do with the art!!! The graphics engine determines what the game can display and how well. It determines how many polygons the game will be able to push with what quality of textures, etc, etc.

Quote:I'd say that's EXACTLY what the "debate" is about! The problem is OB1 has his own bizarre idea of what we're arguing that no one else on this forum can understand... THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE TECHNICAL QUALITY! IT'S ABOUT THE OVERALL LOOK! SO IT'S ARTISTIC AND NOT EASILY QUANTIFIABLE. SO? WHO CARES? THAT'S WHAT MATTERS IDIOT!

Hey dickhead, I started this debate, it's about a fucking comment that I made, so I know what it's about!! It's about the technical quality of the WoW engine, dipshit! The engine is CRAP and that is the end of this debate. If you make me repeat myself I am going to delete your post.

Quote:And as I said the technical quality isn't exactly way behind the field like you suggest. Quite the opposite.

Actually it is. WoW isn't coming out until later this year yet it wouldn't even look impressive if it came out two years ago. It's way behind the curve. The fact that Blizzard made the game to work on shitty systems only further proves my point.

Quote:Oh, OB1, 4-1 now, looks like you're a bit outnumbered on this one... can't bring out your standard "EVERYONE agrees with me and you are so dumb!"...

Dumb ass, the other people involved in this debate have no idea what it is about, they just read your recent posts where you completely deny what this debate is about (which is so mind-numbingly insane to me, I can't believe how one person can be so amazing stupid on so many levels). If they actually read the thread from the very beginning they'll know how it started and what exactly is about. YOU don't even know what it's about because you are a complete idiot. You see Brian, this is precisely why you have no friends in real life. You are an asshole. When you lose an argument you try to change the actual argument, even though this is a message board and your every word is available for everyone to see!

OB1, do you have any idea how rude you are being? Seriously, that's likely the meanest post you have ever written. Honestly, I don't care what you two are debating, but really, did you think a post of NOTHING but insults was warrented? I think ABF deserves an apology.

ABF deserves nothing but more insults. I don't have any tolerance for him anymore, and he's been annoying the hell out of me for SEVEN FUCKING PAGES (not counting the years of him annoying me in other threads), forcing me to repeat myself OVER and OVER. He doesn't know when to quit! With any other person this debate should have lasted ten, maybe twelve posts. But no, not with ABF. He has to go on for over 250 damn posts!! No one infuriates me like this dickweed. Nobody.

Oh, and mind your own damn business. You don't annoy me as much as ABF does, but you're up there.

Well aren't you a bowl of roses today? Look, when you post on a message board, everyone can see it, and it becomes everyone's business. I consider ABF a friend, I considered you one as well, but as of late you really seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder. Odd you would say he's being stubborn, when at any time you could have just walked away. All this in mind, there's no reason to suddenly go on a tangent of insults the way you did. I'll go ahead and step out now, but you really need to think about this you know? Seriously, do you honestly think you were justified?

Cut the sanctimonious bullshit, DJ. I am not going to deal with you right now. I lost patience for both you and ABF a long time ago. This is nothing recent. You two just strike a nerve in me, especially ABF with his complete lack of sanity and sense of reason, who is totally incapable of understanding an idea or opinion that is not his own. Sure I could have left the thread, I could have walked away like you always do, but that's not what I do. I do not run away from conflict. I tried explaining to ABF in the past seven pages what this debate is about, at first very clearly and polite, but when he continued to ignore my points and went on again and again with his inane posts I just couldn't handle it any longer, so I lashed out. It takes a lot to piss me off, and the fact that ABF (and to a lesser extent, yourself) does it so often says a lot about him. If I had just met him I wouldn't react so strongly, but I've had to deal with him for several years and no longer tolerate his behavior. If he continues this crap I am going to delete this thread.

OB1, you need to just calm down okay? Chill out before you do something you regret.

DJ, shut the hell up.

Now that was uncalled for. Honestly, is there something bothering you today?

Yes, and her name is Dark Jaguar.

Seriously, just look at your past few posts here. Why are you trying to get on my nerves? You're like a gnat who won't stop flying around my face.

Now OB1, even you must realize you were the one being aggressive and hostile there.

And you are being antagonistic.

This is like the thread from hell, for Semnat's sake!!

It's beyond hell at this point.

So...it's like school?

Haha, just kidding. School is fun.

I hated high school. College is great though.

High school isn't that bad, not that good either, but it could be worse.

Maybe high school in Oklahoma, but I hated high school over here.

I imagine the size of the high school probably makes a difference as well.

I guess.

Yeah.

cough

Now I wasn't trying to antagonize you, just get you to see how rude you were being there. Anyway, it's nice to see you calmed down.

Anyway, http://www.penny-arcade.com/ , this game looks simply AMAZING! The pics PA took are the best ones I've seen.

Then it's even worse that you unintentionally annoy the hell out of me.

Those screens still don't look very good. Nice art, but the look at those low-poly environments, those horrid trees, and those textures could be sharper considering how everything else looks. For a MMORPG it looks alright, but when you've played stuff like Splinter Cell and Far Cry, it makes WoW look like an N64 game.

It has a very good art style if nothing else.

That I agree with.

OB1 Wrote:For a MMORPG it looks alright, but when you've played stuff like Splinter Cell and Far Cry, it makes WoW look like an N64 game.

N64 game? Somebody's got their revisionist history goggles on.

Penny arcade isnt funny :wha:

Quote:N64 game? Somebody's got their revisionist history goggles on.

By comparison, Smoke. It looks terrible when compared to Far Cry and the like.