85 replies to this topic

[carl kerensky]

I want to add something that I think is very important. Intially when MWO was first released the detail and fidelity were outstanding. Just look at the first videos that were released. I remember when I launched into my very first game I was blown away by the mechs and the attention to detail such as explosions and dismemberment. etc. Very nice and visually immersive.

I remember hearing Bryan talking about the level of fidelity was the next level for a mech game. I agree...IT WAS. What happened? In the Dev answers PGI said it was reduced for performance reasons. Ok. Mmmm. Why cant this be dictated by
my settings. Why am I being penalized if I have the computer power?

Listen I love Mechwarrior. I became a founder because I wanted to support this game. I wanted to see it succeed. I saw so much that made this game immersive and appealing taking a back seat. Reducing down the graphics and allowing collisions to fall behind.....the way mechs just slide around on the terrain just removes me from the game. I understand that some of things are being put back in. Thats great. Please do not reduce the graphics down. You want to capture the audience? Immerse them into this game then raise the fidelity back up and beyond. I believe that should be one of the top priorities. I hear the classic argument that graphics don't make a game. Oh but it does. You may not even realize it but its those small details that draw you into the game and make you feel like your there.

Game balance and mechanics should be top priority IMO I understand. I launched into a new game last night after the patch and I just found the graphics convoluted and messy. It seemed too smoke and mirrors. Its all getting lost to me. The mechs are looking cartoon like and the explosion are just not like they used to be. Watch the early vids and compare. The smoke...the particle effects....it was awesome. Now its just Meh. Thats how I feel and I'm bringing it up in hopes that PGI realizes how important this is. A reminder from one Mech fanatic to another.

I want this game to succeed more than anything. Thanks PGI for bringing it to life. That I appreciate.

CK

[aniviron]

Normally, I'd agree completely. I have a pretty good rig (i5 3570, GTX 680, 16gb) and have been able to run this game locked to 60 fps since I first upgraded in February. It'd be nice to add some things back in that take advantage of the hardware I have to make the game look great.

Unfortunately, the performance of the game has been degraded pretty seriously with every patch. Even though I haven't changed any hardware or installed any software in the last two months, I've dropped to 55 avg frames, but I get as low as 20 in combat now, which is odd because the game continues to look worse and worse as they aim for lower-end systems. Given the trouble they're having keeping the game running normally, I shudder to think what bringing back the details would do.

[Sephlock]

[D3AD1TE]

It's been awhile since I've played... Like a long while.


So what I gather from this post is that, the last time i played. Nearly 8 months ago... The graphics were better then. I've honestly never heard of a game "lowering" the graphics as the development went on!?!?

I've been browsing the forums to think about hopping back in. This is a real deterrent.

[aniviron]

D3AD1TE, on 05 June 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

It's been awhile since I've played... Like a long while.


So what I gather from this post is that, the last time i played. Nearly 8 months ago... The graphics were better then. I've honestly never heard of a game "lowering" the graphics as the development went on!?!?

I've been browsing the forums to think about hopping back in. This is a real deterrent.

Sorry to disappoint, but it is true. There are a lot of incidental details, I notice new things fairly often, always small. A good example of a small thing that was removed was how mech feet used to angle to the terrain and bend unevenly if the terrain was not level to keep the torso flat. Now the legs are always extended and the feet just clip through the ground or float. It apparently helps the framerate to do it like this, and it's a very small detail, but over time that kind of thing adds up.

[Sam Slade]

As someone that is currently stuck playing on a laptop with plenty of CPU power but a crappy 525M GPU I have to agree with the OP.

My framerate moves between 9 and 24 FPS... and I await with baited breath the arrival of my new PC built with all the best bells and whistles I can find to run MWO at 'pretty' levels.

MWO will always have support if it caters to PC gamers with a gamer PC.

[LordBraxton]

aniviron, on 05 June 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Sorry to disappoint, but it is true. There are a lot of incidental details, I notice new things fairly often, always small. A good example of a small thing that was removed was how mech feet used to angle to the terrain and bend unevenly if the terrain was not level to keep the torso flat. Now the legs are always extended and the feet just clip through the ground or float. It apparently helps the framerate to do it like this, and it's a very small detail, but over time that kind of thing adds up.

its added up to the point where I regret buying my new PC for this game

I feel like my old one could run it now

and I only really got a month or 2 of great graphics out of this game before the Cicada patch made everything look like ****

it keeps getting worse

Ive posted about this before...

they are trying to let lower end systems run the game...

so they ruin it for the high tier computers?

thats bad design...

just add more graphics OPTIONS

[Liberator]

I agree that if you want low frames but sexy details there should be some sort of option to gimp yourself.

[and zero]

Recently I saw a demo video for hawken showcasing fully destructable terrain. Floors, walls, roofs. Everything. It was beautiful.

Then I played mwo.

Then I kinda wanted to cry.

[LordBraxton]

Liberator, on 05 June 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

I agree that if you want low frames but sexy details there should be some sort of option to gimp yourself.

well if you have a monster rig all the old bells and whistles would still run above 50fps

now I get a stable 60 but it certainly is not worth the game looiking half as good

as mentioned EVERYTHING was just so much better looking before

Edited by LordBraxton, 06 June 2013 - 07:17 AM.

[Master Maniac]

and zero, on 05 June 2013 - 11:00 PM, said:

Recently I saw a demo video for hawken showcasing fully destructable terrain. Floors, walls, roofs. Everything. It was beautiful.

Then I played mwo.

Then I kinda wanted to cry.

Yeah, Hawken makes me want to cry, too. Years of hype for a wretched spawn-die-spawn-die-fest stuffed with stupid map design, atrocious over-saturated visuals, plinky weapons, and optional gimmicky PhysX particle spam. There's virtually no skill involved, and the devs of that game deliberately designed the standard mech to look as stupid as possible in order to motivate players to pay to play something that isn't ridiculous. There are maybe two weapons per chassis. No variety. And you people complain about the smallest, stupidest things when it comes to MWO, when Hawken features special abilities that are cheap, console-y hacks in a thinly-veiled attempt to artifically inject depth into a shallow, pointless shooter experience. It's bland, repetitive, and just plain awful.

Oh, wait. The game *is* stuffed with bloom and pretty particle effects, and the arbitrary frame rate dips stroke your egos and make you feel good about dropping 400 bucks on the latest greatest GeForce FXMX19000 SE LEET GAMES EDITION ULTRA BLACK 550OC 16gb. I guess that's where the popularity comes from. You idiots will worship anything with color grading.

You know, there was another game that had stupid arcadey mechs and TONS of "destructive" environments. It was called Mechassault, and it was on the Xbox.

Stop freaking whining already. I don't know how the devs continue to operate in a blatantly negative, hostile environment so crowded with underappreciative twats. The core gameplay of MWO is better than the vast majority of games on the market today. It's fun, it's challenging, it's visceral, and it's pretty. It's got actual colors, and isn't that a trick these days? >_> There's a variety of weapons, plenty of mechs, and the mechbay promises to get larger and larger. Throw the devs a bone, would you already? It's an OPEN. BETA. Which, come to think of it, is just a formality given the fact that you can be sure the devs are going to *continue* slaving to improve their game past the beta phase.

[Strayed]

Is graphics really an issue compared to gameplay? I would always consider the quality of gameplay more important but that's just me....

[Zerberus]

Strayed, on 09 June 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

Is graphics really an issue compared to gameplay? I would always consider the quality of gameplay more important but that's just me....

+100

What many don`t know (or realize) is that traditionally (Quake, UT, CS, BF) many competitive players have always set their GFX to "low", simply for the improved framerates and removal of distracting eye candy

[Tennex]

i miss the good graphics too...

the mech texturing especially has taken a hit.

dark ugly lines almost like cell shading except it looks ugly. (and not dirty ugly like an old mech should, but just ugly) it looks especially bad on mechs using bright colors like white

Edited by Tennex, 09 June 2013 - 09:41 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Sephlock, on 05 June 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

At least the heat cap is fixed and the MG's probably did damage, lulz.

[caserock]

I used to be able to run at about 30fps, now it's usually hovers around 20. ******, but I guess that's what happens with a beta sometimes.

I really would love it if all of the effects and shaders and other settings each had an individual slider/setting so that we could better tweak the game. It's frustrating right now.

I think the reason that they've done this is so that the reports coming back from players don't have their setting values all over the damn place when they're trying to interpret the info. Basically they had to "standardize" it as much as they could so they can build this game efficiently for us.


I'm just guessing at all of this, though. I believe our options will not be so limited when we hit full release, and we'll be able to crank all the candy back up again.

Edited by caserock, 09 June 2013 - 11:00 AM.

[carl kerensky]

Master Maniac, on 09 June 2013 - 01:54 AM, said:

Yeah, Hawken makes me want to cry, too. Years of hype for a wretched spawn-die-spawn-die-fest stuffed with stupid map design, atrocious over-saturated visuals, plinky weapons, and optional gimmicky PhysX particle spam. There's virtually no skill involved, and the devs of that game deliberately designed the standard mech to look as stupid as possible in order to motivate players to pay to play something that isn't ridiculous. There are maybe two weapons per chassis. No variety. And you people complain about the smallest, stupidest things when it comes to MWO, when Hawken features special abilities that are cheap, console-y hacks in a thinly-veiled attempt to artifically inject depth into a shallow, pointless shooter experience. It's bland, repetitive, and just plain awful.

Oh, wait. The game *is* stuffed with bloom and pretty particle effects, and the arbitrary frame rate dips stroke your egos and make you feel good about dropping 400 bucks on the latest greatest GeForce FXMX19000 SE LEET GAMES EDITION ULTRA BLACK 550OC 16gb. I guess that's where the popularity comes from. You idiots will worship anything with color grading.

You know, there was another game that had stupid arcadey mechs and TONS of "destructive" environments. It was called Mechassault, and it was on the Xbox.

Stop freaking whining already. I don't know how the devs continue to operate in a blatantly negative, hostile environment so crowded with underappreciative twats. The core gameplay of MWO is better than the vast majority of games on the market today. It's fun, it's challenging, it's visceral, and it's pretty. It's got actual colors, and isn't that a trick these days? >_> There's a variety of weapons, plenty of mechs, and the mechbay promises to get larger and larger. Throw the devs a bone, would you already? It's an OPEN. BETA. Which, come to think of it, is just a formality given the fact that you can be sure the devs are going to *continue* slaving to improve their game past the beta phase.

Another ridiculous post about how graphics don't matter. Of course they matter. How else do you create an immersive environment . I'm not talking about the cheesy use of them either AKA Hawken. The devil is in the details and once you lose that then it becomes just another generic game. I understand that MWO is still developing. Why do you think a forum is created? Its for user input. No one is bashing the Dev. I appreciate what they are doing. I discussed how the gimping of the graphics is a poor decision. Once you take the player to a certain level then expectations are high. You dont want to go backwards right? I want to see MWO have amazing gameplay and I believe an integral part of that is the use of graphical detail to immerse the player. Maybe there is a method to this and they will reintroduce the original graphic fidelity. I truly hope so. Honestly if they just turned the graphics back to where they were when Bryan first introduced MWO I would be very happy.

Ck

Edited by carl kerensky, 19 August 2013 - 07:04 PM.

[aniviron]

carl kerensky, on 10 June 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Another ridiculous post about how graphics don't matter. Of course they matter. How else do you create an immersive environment . I'm not talking about the cheesy use of them either AKA Hawken. The devil is in the details and once you lose that then it becomes just another generic game. I understand that MWO is still developing. Why do you think a forum is created? Its for user input. No one is bashing the Dev. I appreciate what they are doing. I discussed how the gimping of the graphics is a poor decision. Once you take the player to a certain level I want to see MWO have amazing gameplay and I believe an integral part of that is the use of graphical detail to immerse the player. Maybe there is a method to this and they will reintroduce the original graphic fidelity. I truly hope so. Honestly if they just turned the graphics back to where they were when Bryan first introduced it I would be very happy.

Ck

What he said, more or less.

If graphical fidelity didn't matter to players, games would still look like Doom. They don't look bad anymore because humans get most of their sensory input through vision, and it is important to most people.

I know this will shock some of you, but the development team that works on weapon balancing is a different team than the one that does the art. The fact that the game is looking worse over time deserves to be talked about.

And to the guy who says that people played some games on low on purpose: I know. I used to play UT competitively. But generally speaking, that was because 1) you wanted to crank out the maximum possible framerate and 2) acquiring your targets as rapidly as possible was imperative. Neither is a problem in this game, with the 60fps lock and well, targeting.

[hercules1981]

aniviron, on 05 June 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Sorry to disappoint, but it is true. There are a lot of incidental details, I notice new things fairly often, always small. A good example of a small thing that was removed was how mech feet used to angle to the terrain and bend unevenly if the terrain was not level to keep the torso flat. Now the legs are always extended and the feet just clip through the ground or float. It apparently helps the framerate to do it like this, and it's a very small detail, but over time that kind of thing adds up.

**** man i totally remember that now u mention it!

[Ralgas]

It's the aim of keeping it playable on a 5yo hardware (apparently). As for the pretty bells and whistle we need those memory holes they have in dx 11 to get plugged (which apparently has slid a ways on the "to do" list).

Cryengine itself being buggy isn't helping as far as workload strain ofc.