51 replies to this topic

[Admiral_Korean_Jesus]

I just wanted to post something tested recently. These are screenshots of MWO assets used in the CrySDK developer kit test map. Imagine MWO with this amount of detail.

http://imgur.com/a/bvxiD?desktop=1#0


Now compare MWO to a dated XBOX game in the same genre called Chrome hounds.

http://files.xboxic....3-2006-pic5.jpg

Even decade old Mech Assault had destructable environments.

I'm just curious to see how many other people love this game, but get turned of realizing how much more this game could be?

[A DRUNK GUY]

Well they really need to fix the FPS issues first. Then they can worry about making it look like a game from 2007 or later.

[DAYLEET]

This is the part that ill never understand. Dev using low graphic saying they want as much people to play their game when you can just lower the graphic in the menu. Anyone can play Crysis now. I dont need MWO to go between 123fps, id rather have it go 60 on the graphic we see in those screenshot.

[Blakkstar]

I'll take the original MechWarrior graphics if we can get the gameplay that was originally promised for MWO.

[Impyrium]

The problem is, you have to remember that those maps were 100% designed for a FPS. MechWarrior is at a very different scale- not only is it silly from a development perspective to include that much detail, but it would be nasty on performance as well- you're viewing a lot more geometry at MW's scale than if you playing in a human scale FPS.

That, and that was created by a much bigger company. PGI's skill level with maps seems... average, mostly. However, as Blakkstar said, I don't give two hoots for what the maps look like. Why do so many want eye candy when we still don't have a proper MW game?

[Biggest Salami]

I don't find it beautiful. I find it terrifying. Too realistic graphics make me feel nauseated and dizzy. I want to know I'm playing a game.

The only thing that would be better than as-is would be if MWO was done in Pixel art. Now, Pixel Art is beautiful, especially nowadays.

Edited by Biggest Salami, 26 August 2014 - 08:57 PM.

[Destructicus]

I've thought from the start that Cryengine was wrong for this game, by it's very nature you need a beefed up computer (which makes it harder for casuals to invest in the game) just to run it smoothly and it's presented so many problems for PGI and they still struggle to get basic features off the ground

[Kibble]

Having the invironments and all the bells and whistles is nice but lets be real here. Everyone will still lower all the effects and junk just to see better and have an advantage over the people that want it to look SUPER pretty.

[Vassago Rain]

Kibble, on 26 August 2014 - 09:18 PM, said:

Having the invironments and all the bells and whistles is nice but lets be real here. Everyone will still lower all the effects and junk just to see better and have an advantage over the people that want it to look SUPER pretty.

Why is it so hard to have graphics settings so I can play at cryengine standards, and the russians can turn everything off?

[lsp]

Mikato Soul, on 26 August 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

I just wanted to post something tested recently. These are screenshots of MWO assets used in the CrySDK developer kit test map. Imagine MWO with this amount of detail.

http://imgur.com/a/bvxiD?desktop=1#0


Now compare MWO to a dated XBOX game in the same genre called Chrome hounds.

http://files.xboxic....3-2006-pic5.jpg

Even decade old Mech Assault had destructable environments.

I'm just curious to see how many other people love this game, but get turned of realizing how much more this game could be?

That's the reason I come and go with this game, it's little more than death match with robots. If someone put mw4 into a modern engine I would be playing that.

Kibble, on 26 August 2014 - 09:18 PM, said:

Having the invironments and all the bells and whistles is nice but lets be real here. Everyone will still lower all the effects and junk just to see better and have an advantage over the people that want it to look SUPER pretty.

I wouldn't, I never do that in games. I want the immersion.

[lsp]

AUSwarrior24, on 26 August 2014 - 08:16 PM, said:

The problem is, you have to remember that those maps were 100% designed for a FPS. MechWarrior is at a very different scale- not only is it silly from a development perspective to include that much detail, but it would be nasty on performance as well- you're viewing a lot more geometry at MW's scale than if you playing in a human scale FPS.

That, and that was created by a much bigger company. PGI's skill level with maps seems... average, mostly. However, as Blakkstar said, I don't give two hoots for what the maps look like. Why do so many want eye candy when we still don't have a proper MW game?

Mechwarrior is an fps, there's literally no difference between this and a arcadey shooter like CoD. This game could have been so much more if they wanted it to be. Instead of clinging to the lowest common dominator aka people with outdated crappy systems. Although can't even get this to run correctly so who knows. My pc build is over two years old, yet I have no issues playing this maxed out @ 40-60fps. There's literally no excuse to hold the game back for people with dated or non gaming hardware. To me when I log into MWO it doesn't even look like cryengine.

[Lily from animove]

Yeha how beautiful it would be to have such supersetting so that the average MWO player can enjoy a beautiful slideshow.

Would work in a single player Mechwarrior game. but not MWO.

Actualyl PGI should grab some manpower and also release a nice singleplayer game.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Working > eye candy

Besides, why have eye candy when everyone else practically plays the game on low for a tactical advantage anyway? If having lower settings didn't give you the tactical advantage it does, then I'd see reason for better visuals.

Until then, people are going to keep running user.cfg modified to remove the trees and bushes form all maps as well as many other tweaks to make it easier to see their opponent.

[Monkey Lover]

I got to run medium settings anyway even if I have the cpu/gpu power. It crashes way to much if I don't.

[Aresye]

Mikato Soul, on 26 August 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

I'm just curious to see how many other people love this game, but get turned of realizing how much more this game could be?

That's the hands down, #1 reason why so many people are upset at PGI, and it isn't just about the graphics.

Most of the frustration stems from the fact that people can practically TASTE just how awesome this game could be if there was even the slightest bit of extra effort applied.

Living Legends had the opposite problem. The devs for that game put an insane amount of effort into the gameplay, maps, and balance, but had trouble with the game engine itself, so the graphics and animations were its biggest limiting factor.

If this game had the gameplay of Living Legends with the graphics, animations, and effects of MWO, the collective community's heads would explode from the sheer awesomeness.

Alas, we are stuck with a really, really, really polished looking ****.

[William Mountbank]

The first image of the Cataphract emerging from tree cover makes me very, very sad.

AUSwarrior24, on 26 August 2014 - 08:16 PM, said:

The problem is, you have to remember that those maps were 100% designed for a FPS. MechWarrior is at a very different scale- not only is it silly from a development perspective to include that much detail, but it would be nasty on performance as well- you're viewing a lot more geometry at MW's scale than if you playing in a human scale FPS.

While it's true that if you design a game with a certain perspective in mind you can control the amount of geometry being rastered per frame - but I actually suspect you think that because mechs are bigger than people, you need more geometry to render them. Scale is not important in 3D - sure, a tree is just a shrub in MWO, but shrubs require fewer triangles than trees, so everything in a 3D engine is scale invariant.

The only reason we can't have pretty graphics is the same reason standing too near to smoke particles is bad for your framerate. It's also the reason why we'll never have pretty graphics.

[RedDragon]

I wouldn't mind that the game looks like crap (crap from over 5 years ago that is) if it ran properly. BUt a sit is, the game looks like crap and also runs like crap. I even upgraded my system back in Closed Beta with the sole purpose to run MWO better. But it still is a dia show sometimes, although I run everything on medium.

I don't need funky graphics, but it would also be nice to at least have the possibility to turn your graphics to 11 and see what the engine can really do.

Quote

If this game had the gameplay of Living Legends with the graphics, animations, and effects of MWO

Sorry, but I'd take even that from LL. True, the mechs in MWO look pretty good, but they used to look way better some time ago. So did the effects (ammo explosion anyone?).
Now they are even getting lazy with the animations. Best example is the Dire Wolf - while it looks ridiculous walking forward, has anyone seen the DW running backwards? It looks like a chicken on drugs doing step dance. When I saw this, I didn't know if I should laugh or cry. Immersion? With 100 ton monsters hopping around like ballerinas? No way.

[Lyoto Machida]

William Mountbank, on 27 August 2014 - 12:35 AM, said:

The first image of the Cataphract emerging from tree cover makes me very, very sad.



While it's true that if you design a game with a certain perspective in mind you can control the amount of geometry being rastered per frame - but I actually suspect you think that because mechs are bigger than people, you need more geometry to render them. Scale is not important in 3D - sure, a tree is just a shrub in MWO, but shrubs require fewer triangles than trees, so everything in a 3D engine is scale invariant.

The only reason we can't have pretty graphics is the same reason standing too near to smoke particles is bad for your framerate. It's also the reason why we'll never have pretty graphics.

I like these also...give you the sense of size and scale:

Edited by Lyoto Machida, 27 August 2014 - 01:04 AM.

[Jonny Taco]

Minimally viable product folks...

[Rhaythe]

Good luck trying to market a free-to-play game with Crysis 3 hardware requirements.

Also, for those that want it, here's the video: