99 replies to this topic

[Redlight Guardian]

Cygone, on 10 August 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

No argument that those graphics are totally amazing, but how many YEARS did it take for 'mainstream' PCs to be able to run crysis 1 on max settings and minimum FPS of 30 at 1080p?

I'll give you a clue, we are not their yet !

http://www.guru3d.co...-6870-review/17
We are. That is the review of the 6870 which was launched at the end of the year 2010, and runs it at 44 FPS, and its the game expansion at "ambush" level. Not to mention the current mid range AMD 7000 or Nvidia's gtx600 cards series which would run it properly without a hip.

[VinnySlick]

Graphics and gameplay are not mutually exclusive. I played MPBT on a PII 486 with a 14'' monitor which looked like pong by today's standards and honestly I loved every minute of it. That being said, better graphics always enhance gameplay.

Reading between the lines, the real argument here is that people don't want pc games to come out with up-to-date graphics because they own out-of-date pc's. That's not a dig on anyone's situation, just the truth about pc gaming, game devs have to move ahead with the technology... so do we.

Edited by VinnySlick, 10 August 2012 - 12:00 PM.

[verybad]

Landron, on 10 August 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

I dont see why they cant give us something similar considering they are using the same engine as crysis used.

Cost of development. In most cases, the companies that build the engine tend to be the most capable at using it. As they're also trying to sell the engine, not just the game, they have a larger reason to develop to that standard.

I don't think MWO will get to look quite that nice.

[IceSerpent]

Tal Kath Naabal, on 10 August 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

It so disappointing when people assume that you can only either argue one side or the other. Game devs have people working on graphics and on game play. Its naive to think that everyone in the studio can just drop what they are doing and focus on game play, or that everyone can them switch over to graphics.

It is also naive to think that PGI has infinite budget. The way it works is that they have enough money to hire X people. If you want one more designer/artist, you get one less programmer and vice versa.

[Cygone]

Redlight Guardian, on 10 August 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

http://www.guru3d.co...-6870-review/17
We are. That is the review of the 6870 which was launched at the end of the year 2010, and runs it at 44 FPS, and its the game expansion at "ambush" level. Not to mention the current mid range AMD 7000 or Nvidia's gtx600 cards series which would run it properly without a hip.

Sorry but thats not mainstream thats still high end, mainstream is a $30 GPU (single)

[Redlight Guardian]

Cygone, on 10 August 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Sorry but thats not mainstream thats still high end, mainstream is a $30 GPU (single)

That's a very low budget graphics card. It is even below the minimum system requirements. You can't even play the Beta with that.

Edited by Redlight Guardian, 10 August 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[Tal Kath Naabal]

JFlash49, on 10 August 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

here we are again folks. The question of a true gamer or a graphics *****. to gamers for many years now!! its all about game play. i don't wanna play something that looks so REAL and then all i can do is whack a ball with a racket for a high score. Thinking way back in the old days when games were geometric symbols on a blank background. what made it so fun? certainly not graphics.. gameplay my friend.. MWO is fine where it is. dont think so? MW3 (mechwarrior 3) ? remember how that looked? ...goooood...now you see

I like how you didn't address how many people have already pointed out that graphics and game play aren't mutually exclusive.

Mister Blastman, on 10 August 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

I'm 37. I'm too old to be a hipster. You're the kid here. People should stop being infatuated with shiny objects and instead appreciate substance.

Graphics, like pretty women, age and get ugly. Might as well make the game timeless instead as that's the best you can do.

I was using hipster to describe a mindset not an age group or cliche. The mindset that things were better when games looked like lines and dots. I have no qualms with old games for old graphics. The game play defines what is fun.(i wouldn't still have an installed copy of 13 or 14 year old Homeworld on my computer if i did) But graphics are important to immersion as well.

And you obviously didn't read this:

Tal Kath Naabal, on 10 August 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

I really want this game to stand the test of time (point to the game play hipsters; yes game play is responsible for this)

IceSerpent, on 10 August 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

It is also naive to think that PGI has infinite budget. The way it works is that they have enough money to hire X people. If you want one more designer/artist, you get one less programmer and vice versa.

They already have their staff, and they will always have someone in hand for graphic updates and someone on hand for game balancing/feature implementation. But yes budget limitations mean concentrating more on one area than the other. I was just pointing out that the graphic artist isn't gonna put out worse work because they hired a new programmer, it might just take longer than if he had another peron helping.

Cygone, on 10 August 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Sorry but thats not mainstream thats still high end, mainstream is a $30 GPU (single)

Sorry thats bargin bin, not bashing being broke, but $30 is worse than something you find in a console. Mainstream gaming cards are way better than console chips.

Edited by Tal Kath Naabal, 10 August 2012 - 01:09 PM.

[Name48928]

I have enough issue with PGI using a graphics engine developed by a company with a very close working relationship with Electronic Arts.

And now you want MWO to be even more like an EA game?

No.

[bigrigross]

Cygone, on 10 August 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Sorry but thats not mainstream thats still high end, mainstream is a $30 GPU (single)

You have no idea what is what do you. Here, let me educate you.
Low End (ie HTPC): Nvidia GT520, AMD 5450
Mid End: Nvidia GT550, AMD 7770
Main Stream: Nvidia GTX 560, AMD 7800 series
High End: Nvidia GTX 680, AMD 7970
Enthusiast: Dual GPU card or SLi/Xfire configurations of the high end cards.

Mainstream is mainstream because those cards are the most heavily bought cards for gaming out of any of the cards listed. Its not because of price. Its because Price vs Performance.

I am all for graphics. I find MWO's graphics to be just fine. They do need cleaner graphics but I find them good for what the game is. Graphics for a game with no storyline makes immersion worthless. They just need to get rid of motion blur completely. Its hideous.

[Tal Kath Naabal]

^Agreed... but not about motion blur I can be hideous, and whats in now is pretty close, but it is a good tool to moderate the visual stuttering of videogames vs. real life, used in moderation same as HDR. (and by HDR i don't mean high contrast which is what most people think it means)

Edited by Tal Kath Naabal, 10 August 2012 - 01:39 PM.

[donkeybas]

Give them all the graphic prettyness everyone wants. I don't care. Just as long as I get enough graphics adjustment in the game where I can turn all the pretty stuff off, so I can run it on my lower-end rig. That way the guys with all the nice rigs can enjoy it, and the guys with the budget rigs can still play competitively.

Graphics settings are really only for the extreme build and budget builds anyway.

If they make the baseline too high, they will cut people out, it IS FTP after all.

Edited by donkeybas, 10 August 2012 - 01:57 PM.

[Waid]

My vote is as follows: Gameplay over Graphics.

Who cares how good it looks if its no fun to play? That's like dating a supermodel that doesn't like having sex.

Yeah, its nice to look at from time to time, but damn it man, I wanna DO things to it.

[Tsunamisan]

game play first nobody said there wouldn't be scalable graphics in the future. Wait for it and it verry well may come once the games released and polished. After all this is eye candy not a fundamental gameplay mechanic.

[xZaOx]

Mister Blastman, on 10 August 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

How about lets not and instead focus on gameplay. I don't want to be forced to fork out lots of money just to play a game. I'd be happy if games stay where they are right now, graphically speaking, forever.

I totally agree. But notice the word "eventually"? Once the game gets to where it needs to be and they get to add the bells and whistles, the potential is huge for a beautiful game!

[Landron]

verybad, on 10 August 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

Cost of development. In most cases, the companies that build the engine tend to be the most capable at using it. As they're also trying to sell the engine, not just the game, they have a larger reason to develop to that standard.

I don't think MWO will get to look quite that nice.

Why can't it look that good? They are using cryengine 3 for a reason and its not just for the hell of it. They have already stated that they are running the game on low graphics and will turn it up closer to launch. So for the people that say gameplay>graphics or graphics>gameplay they have already given us the gameplay and when the game goes live we will get the graphics as well. So you see in the end we can and will have both of both worlds.

[SPC Newbie]

I am really glad to see as many people saying they prefer gameplay over graphics. I am right there with you. One thing that dose correlate with improved graphics. The time it takes to create assets.It takes longer the higher the graphical quality is. Plus I find that a lot of times that the addition of greater definition doesn't add anything to the story or the game as a whole. I think more people would enjoy more maps, more mechs, and highly polished controls as opposed to seeing every rivet, weld, and joint on the mech.

[Rowen Windsong]

Why not making everyone happy? Give them game play AND these great graphics. But make the player able to turn on and off all the HD stuff so our brothers and sisters with slower systems can still play with us.

Edit: Just a thought, they could always work on the better graphics later on after launch as well, sort of luck an update/patch release. That way they can still spend all their time now working on making the great gameplay even better.

Edited by Rowen Windsong, 10 August 2012 - 03:39 PM.

[Dillon Cahel]

Another thing that nobody has mentioned yet is how important graphics are to the marketing of this game.

I can assure you that if the dedicated hardcore BT/MW fans are the only people playing this game, PGI are NOT going to have the budget to make this game all that it can be.

[MoonUnitBeta]

People who are saying Gameplay > Graphics have a point.
But just leaving it at that isn't right.
Gameplay is indeed important, but so are graphics. Playing with high-fidelity really is definately pleasing to the player, and if you have the computer to run it, you want the game to look it's best. Needless to say time spent on gameplay shouldn't be spent on graphics. But like OP said, "I wonder how much they'll add."

Gameplay > Graphics people are forgetting that there are graphics SETTINGS. MWO has an exciting one drop down menu for the settings, but if the game came with super high graphics, setting the default to a simple "Low" isn't intruding with you Gameplay people is it? They have the engine that can do amazing graphics, implementing awesome graphics isn't going to break the game, it's going to improve it for those who appreciate the work, because it's just as appreciated as a painting on a wall to help liven the room.

Saying 'Gameplay > Graphics' doesn't dismiss the fact that graphics are important. It's also ignorant to think that the graphics can't be improved afterwards. Indie games tend not to be high in graphical demand, probably because they lack the time and resource to do so, and also probably because they aren't going to spend a whole lot of time on the graphics if there is only 20 or so hours of gameplay. This is sometimes a falicy when people thing that graphics means gameplay, because you'll be looking at the game for a long time because it's just that good. It's really just the order of how things are done. And gameplay isn't greater than anything else, graphics is just as much as a component as gameplay is. But like I said, it's the order of how things are done.

Anyways, with all that said. The graphics in MW:O are kind of underwhelming for me. When I saw the "Achieved with CryEngine 3" I definately had my hopes high to see some breath taking scenes. Currently it feels a bit empty/shallow. MW:O isn't a fast paced first person shooter where you can't take a moment for your self and look around, it's a game where you can actually take a look around and be impressed by the environment while your struttin' your stuff towards the enemy. As a game that's trying to immerse you into the feeling of a heavy powerful mech, is it so much to ask to be immersed into the environment as well? To me they go hand in hand. If I see that I'm playing a video game(not immersed) and just lumbering around, it feels like i'm playing a video game and i'm just lumbering around. The environment takes me out of my immersion with my Mech and puts me right into my computer chair. So, I am hoping that they put more focus on graphics, but once they sort out the bugs, mechlab, and gameplay of course.

Gameplay > Graphics isn't enough guys.
"Gameplay then Graphics." is a much more accurate and logical approach. Let's use it, because after 90 days of arguing, neither is better than the other.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 10 August 2012 - 04:13 PM.

[Landron]

Landron, on 10 August 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

Why can't it look that good? They are using cryengine 3 for a reason and its not just for the hell of it. They have already stated that they are running the game on low graphics and will turn it up closer to launch. So for the people that say gameplay>graphics or graphics>gameplay they have already given us the gameplay and when the game goes live we will get the graphics as well. So you see in the end we can and will have both of both worlds.