WOW beta!

[A Black Falcon]

Ooh... so pretty...








OB1, it must be pretty lonely being one of the two or three people on the planet who don't think this game looks amazing...

[OB1]

It really doesn't look that great. Wanna see a great-looking MMORPG? Here:














Yeah WoW pretty much looks like crap compared to this.

[OB1]

Hilarious coming from the person here least likely to ever admit anyone else's opinion could ever be even remotely valid, even for them...

No that's just yours. :kiss:

[A Black Falcon]

http://www.gamespy.com/previews/january04/wowpc/

Gamespot, IGN, and Gamespy are all certainly very impressed by WoW, if you read anything they say... not to mention Blizz fansites obviously. :)

And as for whatever that game is, it certainly has high poly characters, but the environments are quite unimpressive. WoW's look far, far nicer. And please remember, WoW is trying to look cartoonish. That is the style. Thus the cartoonish look, which looks very similar to Warcraft III, is perfect. And given how great Warcraft III looks (sure the models are a bit low poly but you don't notice that when actually playing the game, you just notice how amazingly stylish it all is and how beautiful the game is in motion, especially with groups of troops on the screen... that is, if your comp can handle turning on the graphics all the way...)




The Night Elf city is beautiful...

http://www.worldofwar.net/screenshots/ingame/index.php








Wow. Just wow.



Black Rock Spire... wow...








The scale of that door...

Blizz's visual style is some of the best.



The problem isn't with the graphics. It's with your bizarre hatred of Blizzard's beautiful graphical style used in WC3 and WoW.

I mean, seriously try to say that these environments look as nice. (EQ2)








I know which game I choose... especially for sheer style.

[OB1]

Are you kidding me? WoW's environments are nothing special at all. Low poly count, poor textures, you name it. It looks like they're trying to get it to run on a Dreamcast-quality PC.

Blizz can do gameplay, but definitely not high-quality graphics.

[A Black Falcon]

Look at my last post again now. Oh, EQ2 is nice looking and all, but compared to the sheer visual greatness of Blizzard's artwork, it pales. Just about anything would... Blizz proves that polygons are no replacement for great art.

[alien space marine]

Everquest is crap! Sony customer service is pretty weak and for that alone EQ2 isnt as good.

WOW has a way better storyline and a much more interesting enviroments,Graphics doesnt make a good game and WOW graphics are good enough otherwise it may has well be FFXI which has better graphics but shitty gameplay.

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, don't those environments in EQ2 look really bland? Not what I'd expect from such a big game, but they do. For comparison, look at these...





Etc. Its not even close. The only nice thing in those EQ2 shots for environments is the nice look of the Medieval village... and those buildings do look nice. But I definitely prefer the beauty of WoW's amazing cartoon art. As I said, sure, EQ2 has more polys, but that is irrelevant when we're talking artwork as great as WoW.

And gameplay-wise I am sure that there will be no comparison.

Oh, and EQ2 has very ugly hills and trees, and the people while they often look good have a few not so flattering. See: the last two in that giant picture post of mine. :)

[OB1]

We're not talking about which game has better art design (which is completely subjective) or gameplay. We're talking about which game looks better from a technical standpoint. Sure WoW has nice art, but the graphics are DC-quality. It looks like they're using the WC3 engine, fer cryin' out loud. I'm sure it'll be fun since it's Blizzard, but the graphics engine was very obviously made with low-end systems in mind.

[Geno]

I have taste of colts! *is mauled for ruining the thread again*

[A Black Falcon]

Uh, those graphics look a lot better than WC3. And art is obviously a huge factor! The most important one at this point, I'd certainly say. And even just graphically, as I said, EQ has bad looking trees and strange terrain... not mentioning again that WoW just has better style and much cooler looking characters and worlds. :)

[OB1]

It looks marginally better than WC3. Art is the only thing WoW has going for it, and if you're suggesting that art is all that matters then Grim Fandango looks better than WoW and EQ2 combined. The poly counts are insanely low, the textures are low-res, and you can totally tell that they wanted people with P2s and Voodoo 3's to be able to play the game. :p

Everquest's characters, environments, and textures all look ten times better than WoW's. Don't let your Blizzard fanboyism blind you, ABF. WoW will probably be the better game, but technically speaking it's archaic.

[A Black Falcon]

Blizz always tries to make their games beautiful but not super-high-spec, so that someone with an average machine can play it decently. They need to to hit the mass market that they do with their games...

As for art, some of my favorites are Rayman 2 on cartoonish (that games' graphics impressed me a lot...) and Disciples 2 (yes its 2d and I mention it often but the artwork in that game is just so amazing...). :)

Ugly terrain.



Not to mention that awful giant tree in my last post.

And the characters are high-poly but they look... I don't know... shiny? Not realistic. Like they're going for realism but made them look plasticy. Blizz's look a lot more like real things (for the world they are in), and always seem to 'fit'... oh the EQ ones fit their world I'd say but that's because the world isn't exactly made up of great art either. :)

[OB1]

Aesthetically bland like Dungeons and Dragons games, yes. But techically speaking it's a complete joke for you to even compare WoW with EQ2. It's like comparing Medieval Total War with WC3. Sure the characters fit in with their world. Low poly world with poor textures, low poly characters with poor textures. Wee!

The EQ2 characters look shiny because of an overuse of shaders. You'll see lots of that in plenty of X-Box games as well. But it sure beats WoW's DC textures, that's for sure. The only thing WoW's graphics have going for it is the color pallette and the art style. Everything else is C-R-A-P.

[A Black Falcon]

You are completely insane. It is a joke even pretending to say that EQ2 is better looking than WoW... because, see, what the graphics actually LOOK LIKE matters, and WoW is a million times nicer looking than EQ's bland graphics.

And the Dreamcast could never do WoW or its graphics in its wildest dreams.

And you honestly think that the terrain and trees and stuff in EQ2 looks better than WoW? Seriously, are you blind?

You call me an automaton, but if you can't see the brilliance of Blizzard's graphical style in Warcraft III and World of Warcraft its not me who is one.

Ooh, more polygons! Must be better looking then!

[OB1]

You've lost it, boy. I can't believe how hard you're trying to convince yourself that gorgeous graphics like this...





....look worse than average stuff like this:





I mean really now, this is pretty sad. This debate is not about which game is going to be better or which one has a brighter look to it, it's about which one has better graphics! EQ2 a years ahead of WoW in that regard. There's no comparison whatsoever.

Oh and yes, the DC could pretty much do that. I've played dozens of DC games with much better characters models and environments. Maybe not both with a draw distance that good, but it's certainly not that big of a stretch. WoW would look good in 2000, but definitely not in 2004.

[OB1]

ABF, as usual you don't even know what this debate is about. It's technical, not aesthetic. Aesthetics are far too subjective, and someone can consider Mario World to be the best-looking game ever simply because they love the art in the game. Personally, I consider ICO to be the most beautiful game ever made, but I would never proclaim that it has better graphics than Doom 3. Conversely, I despise Doom 3's art style but I admire its technical magnificence. WoW is aesthetically pleasing, but on a purely technical level it's pretty bad. I don't find Everquest 2 to be aesthetically pleasing but on a technical level it's really amazing for a MMORPG. And before you say it yes, aesthetics are a very important part of graphics. But when I said that EQ2 is much more graphically impressive than WoW, I made it very clear that I meant technically-speaking.

[A Black Falcon]

That's a town and a snow field! Different areas...




And the EQ2 people look nice but they're so glossy... WoW's look much better that way. More realistic, in the game's cartoonish way.

Some ones I didn't post before.

Big, and cool...

Unfortunately flying things are just transports you take from point to point, not true mounts like horses/wolves/NE big cats/etc. :(


You Are Dead

town at night


Compared to this kind of style and artistic beauty, EQ's bland artwork (that is in no way as good as D&D either, for sure, IMO) just doesn't compare when you consider all the factors.

[OB1]

Wow, you're like a little child who's putting his fingers in his ears and going "neener neener neener!" because he doesn't it like it when he's being told off or wrong about something. Yes, EQ2's characters are shiny, but that's nothing a quick edit in the exe file won't fix. You just have to turn down the shaders a notch. But WoW's DC textures are more realistic? Hoooo... yowza. You need to check that eyesite of yours, ABF. WoW = pretty colors, average graphics. EQ2 = bland D&D-style art (no matter what you say), great graphics.

[A Black Falcon]

http://www.infoceptor.com/ibb/index.php?showtopic=12248
More nice pictures... a town from the air, several in a mine, a really cool Water Elemental, an Ogre... :) :)

ABF, as usual you don't even know what this debate is about. It's technical, not aesthetic. Aesthetics are far too subjective, and someone can consider Mario World to be the best-looking game ever simply because they love the art in the game. Personally, I consider ICO to be the most beautiful game ever made, but I would never proclaim that it has better graphics than Doom 3. Conversely, I despise Doom 3's art style but I admire its technical magnificence. WoW is aesthetically pleasing, but on a purely technical level it's pretty bad. I don't find Everquest 2 to be aesthetically pleasing but on a technical level it's really amazing for a MMORPG. And before you say it yes, aesthetics are a very important part of graphics. But when I said that EQ2 is much more graphically impressive than WoW, I made it very clear that I meant technically-speaking.

This is about which game looks better, and athetics matter a lot. Obviously EQ2 can push more polys, but who cares... WoW is hardly behind the curve graphically. Yes the character poly counts aren't super high, but they aren't super low and the environments look great too you know, better than EQ2's do...

Oh, and consider this. WoW comes out in beta in like a week. How long until we get EQ2? I don't know, but I bet it isn't this week... and also how many people will be able to play online with it looking like that? Yeah. Compared to WoW, which will be different...

[alien space marine]

The WOW graphics have been beefed up a little more since those old shots appeared.

http://www.blizzard.com/wow/screenshot.a...x=2&Set=23

This guy looks like Gimili.

[OB1]

This is about which game looks better, and athetics matter a lot. Obviously EQ2 can push more polys, but who cares... WoW is hardly behind the curve graphically. Yes the character poly counts aren't super high, but they aren't super low and the environments look great too you know, better than EQ2's do...

Aesthetics are completely subjective while technical merit is not. As I said, you could call Mario World the best-looking game ever made if you think it has the best art ever. WoW is most definitely behind the graphics curve, and you can easily tell that it was created with shitty PCs in mind.

Oh, and consider this. WoW comes out in beta in like a week. How long until we get EQ2? I don't know, but I bet it isn't this week... and also how many people will be able to play online with it looking like that? Yeah. Compared to WoW, which will be different...

Again you try to spin this debate. You can't win, so you spin. So sad. This is not about which game is coming out first, which is completely irrelevent (and really, the game coming out later has even more of an edge since it's going to look even better). It's also not about which one can run on a shitty PC better. The fact that you bring that up puts a huge hole into your argument.

[Great Rumbler]

From a technical stand-point EQ2 has WoW beat by a hundred miles. But in terms of aesthetics WoW definitely has a better art style; EQ2 has a very Morrowind-esque art style, which isn't too great.

[A Black Falcon]

Win? No, you just defined the debate on your side until you won by default... in your opinion... you're the one spinning it so you can't lose your arguements, not me. I wasn't the one who tried to say tha artwork is irrelevant when we are talking about which game looks nicer! That is crazy!

See, "better" doesn't just mean technically and it never did from my side of the conversation. I've always said that the best thing about Blizz's art isn't their polycount but their brilliant artwork. Your saying it looks bad, from my view (and as I've been saying each time we have this debate and you've never really denied, especially given how you attacked WCIII too!), is your saying that you dislike their art style... which I just can't understand. WC3/WoW look so awesome!

Yes, EQ2's characters are shiny, but that's nothing a quick edit in the exe file won't fix. You just have to turn down the shaders a notch.

And you think they'll do that?

Aesthetics are completely subjective while technical merit is not. As I said, you could call Mario World the best-looking game ever made if you think it has the best art ever. WoW is most definitely behind the graphics curve, and you can easily tell that it was created with shitty PCs in mind.

And that would, IMO, be a valid opinion (SMW) if you really love that art that much...

[OB1]

*sigh*

You're so dumb, ABF. See? GR knows what I'm talking about.

And you think they'll do that?

You can do it by yourself, doofus. Just open the main ini file and tone down the specular mapping. So difficult!

And that would, IMO, be a valid opinion (SMW) if you really love that art that much...

Yes, but nobody would say that Mario World has the best graphics in the world.

[A Black Falcon]

You're so dumb, ABF. See? GR knows what I'm talking about.

I could say the same thing about his comments, you know... he didn't give enough detail. Does the fact that EQ2 has more polys and a more powerful engine mean that its graphics are actually better? GR dodged the question... :)

In short, this debate depends on how you define "better". We have very different definitions.

Yes, but nobody would say that Mario World has the best graphics in the world.

No, probably not. And yes art style is a subjective thing. But still, it's a more important factor than raw polys for determining which you think looks better... see, "better" isn't a synonym for "the most impressive technically" in my book, it means "which game you think has the best look". Where "best" means what you like most, whatever factors that includes...

[OB1]

I could say the same thing about his comments, you know... he didn't give enough detail. Does the fact that EQ2 has more polys and a more powerful engine mean that its graphics are actually better? GR dodged the question...

He said the exact same thing that I did: that EQ2 is technically much, much more impressive-looking than WoW.

In short, this debate depends on how you define "better". We have very different definitions.

Yes, for me better means "even more positive", while for you it means "much worse".

[Great Rumbler]

Does the fact that EQ2 has more polys and a more powerful engine mean that its graphics are actually better? GR dodged the question...

Overall graphics are a difficult thing to judge. Each game has it's high points and low point. But...that's not the answer you want. Alright here it is, the answer to the question "Which game has better graphics?".


...


It's coming up now.


...


...


Really really soon now.


...


...


Are you sure you want to know the answer?

...


...

Okay here it is: They both win. EQ2 has a bland, generic art style, but makes up for it with high rez textures and a high polygon count. WoW has low rez textures and a low polygon count, but makes up for it with an awesome, magical art style.

[A Black Falcon]

He said the exact same thing that I did: that EQ2 is technically much, much more impressive-looking than WoW.

Not true. He took a middle ground, as his latest post makes clear.

Yes, for me better means "even more positive", while for you it means "much worse".

No, yours is "the one that has better graphics technically is better even though it has poor art"... though you also seem to think that WoW and WC3 have a bad art style which is completely beyond my comprehension, since I think they have about as good art as is possible.

Oh, this debate won't go anywhere if you don't take it seriously, and brushing off my comments with a "your opinion is dumb" is just bad debating. Look, it's obvious that we are debating this because we have different opinions of "better' and instead of making some stupid joke on mine which makes no sense, how about just admitting the obvious: you knew that you could not win this arguement based on a definition of "better" like I have used all along because Warcraft clearly schools the opposition on that category, so you redefined the term to exclude anything other than what is best technically, where WoW loses, just to prove how much you hate Blizzard's art... it really is quite bizarre, you know. I just can't understand how you dislike their artwork.

[Great Rumbler]

Not true. He took a middle ground, as his latest post makes clear.

From technical only standpoint EQ2 DOES look many times better WoW, it's when you put everything together where there's a tie.

[A Black Falcon]

How about the terrain and trees, though... :)

And as I said, the middle ground. How OB1 took your comments to being agreeing with him, I don't know...

[Great Rumbler]

Technical, ABF. Technical means textures and polygons and there's no possibly way to deny that WoW has better textures or more polygons than EQ2. You just can't.

How about the terrain and trees, though...

Technically, no. Artistically, yes.

[A Black Falcon]

Crossed-poly trees are ugly!

EQ2 has very nice water, but the trees and land... not so good.

And yes, obviously EQ2 is a more powerful engine, that's impossible to deny... and the game doesn't look hideous or anything, it just looks like 'bland semi-realistic fantasy', like they're trying to make that fantasy world look like a real one but stopped partway... the overall look is just not good. Give me a consistent and artistically beautiful game like WoW anyday.

On a similar vein, the graphics in Rayman 2 impressed me a whole lot more than plenty of games that are a lot newer...

Oh, and I never mentioned technical graphics as the basis for the arguement, OB1 did... I've been saying the exact opposite since the beginning, you know...

[OB1]

Not true. He took a middle ground, as his latest post makes clear.

GR said exactly what I said, dummy. From a technical standpoint EQ2 is a million times more impressive-looking.

No, yours is "the one that has better graphics technically is better even though it has poor art"... though you also seem to think that WoW and WC3 have a bad art style which is completely beyond my comprehension, since I think they have about as good art as is possible.

Oh, this debate won't go anywhere if you don't take it seriously, and brushing off my comments with a "your opinion is dumb" is just bad debating. Look, it's obvious that we are debating this because we have different opinions of "better' and instead of making some stupid joke on mine which makes no sense, how about just admitting the obvious: you knew that you could not win this arguement based on a definition of "better" like I have used all along because Warcraft clearly schools the opposition on that category, so you redefined the term to exclude anything other than what is best technically, where WoW loses, just to prove how much you hate Blizzard's art... it really is quite bizarre, you know. I just can't understand how you dislike their artwork.

I never said I didn't like their art, that's just a lie you made up because that is the only way you can debate. You lose ground so you make up shit. Classic ABF. Their art is fine. Not amazing, but fine. If you want to be superb video game art, play ICO.

[alien space marine]

EQ2 graphics are built for higher end Pcs and WOW is for average household computers but still looks great.If WOW was on the same high end res as EQ2 it would smash EQ2 blandness with superior art.

[A Black Falcon]

I never said I didn't like their art, that's just a lie you made up because that is the only way you can debate. You lose ground so you make up shit. Classic ABF. Their art is fine. Not amazing, but fine. If you want to be superb video game art, play ICO.

Um, you must be reading some debate other than this one, because I've been very, very consistent... I have NOT changed my line of arguement. Not at all. And you proved my point again -- the real reason you're doing this is because for some reason you don't like their art. I never said that WoW had a better graphics engine than EQ2. You are arguing about something I am not...

Because, see, as I said, I've been saying "better", ie what you like, not 'which pushes the most polys'. Its very sad that you don't seem to get the idea that you are the one who changed the debate when you saw you could not win, not me...

I've seen Ico. Very stylish, but not like this... for one I don't recall it being cartoonish...

[OB1]

I didn't say you were changing your argument, I said that you're making up lies as per usual. When did I say that I hate the WC art style? You're making shit up. This was always about which game had better graphics, not which game has the better art style. EQ2 has far superior graphics to WoW. When people use the word "graphics" with games it's usually a technical thing.

And so ICO can't have amazing artwork because it's not cartoony?

[A Black Falcon]

Given the number of times you have attacked the graphics of Warcraft III and World of Warcraft, you don't need to say you dislike their graphics to make it blatantly obvious...

And yes, it is about which has better graphics, exactly.*sigh* you still don't get it...

And about Ico I wasn't saying that, I was saying that its a somewhat different category...

[OB1]

GRAPHICS do not equal ART STYLE, for the MILLIONTH TIME already!

I swear ABF, with each new debate you make yourself look like even more of an idiot. Why you don't understand the difference between a technical debate and an aesthetic one is beyond me. Simple stupidity is the only answer I can come up with.

[A Black Falcon]

Me looking like an idiot? Sorry, but absolutely wrong. You are looking like an idiot because it took you so long to figure out what my point was... and now that you do you say that I of all people don't understand the debate. It is amazing the things you will come up with to try to no admit you lost.

See, as I've explained ten times, the only person here who was discussing only technical graphics was you...

[OB1]

I knew what you were saying from the beginning, you dolt. And this entire time I've been spelling out for you that this is a t-e-c-h-n-i-c-a-l debate! You're just so incredibly thick-head it amazes me.

This is my debate. I started it, and you contested my statement. So I know very well what this debate is about! You sir, are an idiot.

[A Black Falcon]

You said it looks bad. I debated on that using my definition of what good or bad graphics are. Simple.

[OB1]

I said that it's graphics suck, and I made it clear that I meant it in technical terms. Then you responded with "You're crazy! WoW has way better art!". Like I said, you're a dolt.

[alien space marine]

Ob1 you insulted us blizzard dorks in our faces, So we cant help but bark back!

[OB1]

[A Black Falcon]

Exactly. What if I said "Metroid Fusion is SO UGLY! How could you like that game????"

Now technically i'd be right, because it is ugly compared to nicer 2d. But does that make my comment sane? Of course not!

Same thing here. You're insulting the graphics of one of my favorite serieses (Warcraft), graphics I love, and the even better graphics of a spinoff...

Why not just go around bashing Ocarina of Time for being so amazingly ugly, huh? Idiot.

[OB1]

Ah, so this is all about me calling your precious little Warcraft ugly? Hahahaha, that's so sad. The WoW graphics engine is pretty crappy, ABF.

[A Black Falcon]

Moron, you'd react the same way if it was a series you loved. You did when I made a tiny slight about the graphics in Metroid Zero Mission!

No, it is not. It can make beautiful environments, has huge scale (see: picture of large number of trees from hill, or plenty of big areas), and easily the best art, level look, style, and everything else from any MMORPG I've seen.

And if you'd actually play Warcraft III some you'd see how beautiful that game is. This is like that except first person, and the look is nothing short of amazing...

[OB1]

I said you were a fool for saying that Zero Mission only looked as good as Super Metroid. I never claimed that ZM was the best-looking game ever made. I'm more objective than you are when it comes to judging graphics. I hate Doom but I admit that Doom 3 looks better than just about anything. And by better I mean that it's the most technically-impressive game I've seen.

[A Black Falcon]

EverQuest 2 is not exactly the best looking game I've ever seen. :) As I said, I think the terrain and trees look awful and that the characters aren't that good... give me the trees in World of Warcraft any day, they're far better. And in this case I mean that in any sense of the term. :)