99 replies to this topic

[Zavadan]

it has good graphics right now, must wait to see what happens later when updated to complete version, gameplay right now for a Beta its fine

[Valentyn]

Landron, on 11 August 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

BECAUSE THEY ARE RUNNING GRAPHICS ON LOW TILL LAUNCH. My god how many times do they need to tell us this lol. Go read up on stuff before you make a comment like "graphics are bland".

Please provide a quote and or source from the Devs stating this please.

[th3 fr4gil3]

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

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

lol thats uber budget mate.
i consider mainstream asis £100-£130.
you want high end look at 69xx/79xx.

bigrigross, on 10 August 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

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.

gotta disagree with you there.
if you go by price v performance then the 6850/70 beat the 7750/70 on performance for same price, and only lag behind 7850/70 by 5-10% but with £80-90 lower price.
i know most people i know would go for the cheaper card ergo making it mainstream.

[Sinitron]

Davidius, on 10 August 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Because every manhour spent on graphics must be reducted from something else. I feel the graphics on MWO are fine with few amendments like more view distance and less blurring

This is just flat out wrong, there are multiple divisions working on different aspects of the game - do you think a sound guy is just as good at 3D-modelling as a 3D artist, or the other way around? Sure, some things could take longer, but they are working non-stop on the engine and graphics to improve and stabilize it as much as possible for launch. Adding features is not unthinkable at all, and the only thing preventing them from making a prettier game is peoples' inability to run high-end visuals. This last bit is key, because computers are not consoles and require upgrades and maintenance. I'm on a budget computer from 2010 which I bought when my old computer was unable to run StarCraft 2, and frankly I could see myself shelling out for a completely new system sometime next year if I have a job at the time and finances allow it.

[sirius89]

Landron, on 11 August 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

BECAUSE THEY ARE RUNNING GRAPHICS ON LOW TILL LAUNCH. My god how many times do they need to tell us this lol. Go read up on stuff before you make a comment like "graphics are bland".

Where did they say that? o_O link?

[Redlight Guardian]

Sinitron, on 12 August 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

Adding features is not unthinkable at all, and the only thing preventing them from making a prettier game is peoples' inability to run high-end visuals.

Yeah, I agree with that, that is the main reason there are a ton of people out there saying "the graphics are just fine, I want more gamplay" or stuff like that. The devs at piranha are already working on the gameplay, and they have already said so in every news update and Q&A. But its just that some people are afraid of having to upgrade their PCs and say "oh no, the game should stay just as it is right now in terms of graphics."

They have to understand something: right now, the PC is way ahead from the consoles in terms of power processing and graphics. If they want to stay with their 5 year old PCs, or simply don't want to spend on a high end graphics card, its fine, they will get the visuals that are available on the Beta now. But dont complain later that they have to lower the graphics settings to the minimum to run the game. It is just not fair that the devs hold back the power of the engine to please these guys, and not squeeze the engine capabilities to its maximum.

Edited by Redlight Guardian, 12 August 2012 - 07:41 AM.

[Snapster]

You have to be able to balance out both sides. Too much of either, and you end up with an empty product, devoid of any soul. This game is okay as it is. The graphics are plenty breath-taking as it is, no need to further advance them. And the controls are top-notch.

This game is just perfect in my opinion.

[BuddyBoombox]

Once the game is stable and balnaced, I do hope they retexture some mechs and maps. Lens(cockpit glass?) flaring could be an intersting tactical issue since approaching from the sun coudl hide your approach. I want to have a pretty game to play, but I agree with most posts, get the gameplay right, then later(open beta perhaps?) get the graphics better.

EDIT: Devs could ask to pull system specs from beta testers to find out what kind of systems are playing their game, to bettetr understand how far they could push the graphics.

Edited by BuddyBoombox, 12 August 2012 - 07:52 AM.

[Redlight Guardian]

Snapster, on 12 August 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

This game is okay as it is. The graphics are plenty breath-taking as it is, no need to further advance them.

Yes, the game its ok, but I think you have not visualized what the engine is capable of delivering to the visuals of this game. Once they upgrade the game to Directx 11 you willl see a huge difference. And maybe after that, you will want to upgrade your PC to run it. Let's just hope they stay at the edge of the power that the engine has, and make the game have great visuals for the years to come.

[EDMW CSN]

Doesn't matter, my PC is more than capable to take advantage of DX 11. I just want PGI to get the basic kinks resolved, then head on to community warfare and more.

Then maybe a graphical overhaul

[KrisKaBob]

Davidius, on 10 August 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Because every manhour spent on graphics must be reducted from something else. I feel the graphics on MWO are fine with few amendments like more view distance and less blurring

Disagree on the blurring. After the recent patch where motion blur was added, I think is quite cool and realistic with Ultra settings and missile hits cause a nice smooth blur for a moment.

Unless you talking about other blurring.

[Demonocolips]

motion blur is annoying when simulated its alright when the your head does it but in game motion blur has always been a problem
when im seeing two legs right next to each other like one of those old fashion silly 3d photos i get thrown off and it just ruins the experience
i have motion blur off and it still blurs so not really sure if that option even does anything

Edited by Demonocolips, 26 September 2012 - 06:26 PM.

[Kizami z3r0]

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.

Give that man a gold star!

[Davidius]

KrisKaBob, on 26 September 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

Disagree on the blurring. After the recent patch where motion blur was added, I think is quite cool and realistic with Ultra settings and missile hits cause a nice smooth blur for a moment.

Unless you talking about other blurring.

The blur then was hideous and produced double images everywhere. the blur right now is way to strong. It even blurs my window struts when going 140kph.

But I agree that the general trend for graphics quality is up.

[John Clavell]

I want 'Top Secret Toad", nuff said.

[Badgerpants]

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. There are people who's job is only game play. They wouldn't know where to start in a 3d modeling program, or Photoshop. If it was explained to them they would draw stick figures, because that not what they are good at. They are good at creating fun games. Also there are people who do nothing but graphics, they are constantly working on new shinyer stuff for us to play with. They probably won't ever mess with the games config files, they leave that to the designers. Also coders scripting physics, GUI guys making menus*, and even more coders working on back end, hardware gurus reworking server loads, etc...

Yes a studio can add budget to one department or the other, but those people will still be working on their jobs**, whether it is cryengine graphics or LRM balancing or (hopefully) information warfare.

Anyway sorry for the rant but I'm oh so tired with the "Game play>Graphics" hipsters jumping into every topic pertaining to graphics and stomping on the discussion. As for me I'm sure that the game play will be great (hopefully) I really want this game to stand the test of time (point to the game play hipsters; yes game play is responsible for this), And I also hope that it blows our socks off graphically too! (with ongoing support PGI should be able to add more shiny later too!)

@OP That video really shows how much more we can do in real-time now than even 2 years ago (like forever ago) I'm really really really exited for tessellation features, BTW: lots of machines can run this option if its scaleable, I run tessellated models and props in Unreal Developers Kit 3 on a Phenom II X4 970 @ 3.7 and a ATI 6870. pretty cheap setup imo. I hope someday MWO uses these features.


* Shout-out here; gui guys! yes you! Please rework the Hud, it looks like a really cool unusable bunch of neat lines!

**PGI Hire me!!

I agree that the responsibilities for Gameplay and Graphics are seperate but you've missed the point, a game with good graphics but bad gameplay will always be **** while a game with good gameplay but bad graphics has a chance to be good, if it's good enough that people can ignore or accept the graphics issues. My proof? One word, ELITE, if you don't know what I'm talking about it's a space trading sim game from the Commodore 64 golden age. gameplay was so good that at least 2 other games were based on the same premise!

Edited by Badgerpants, 27 September 2012 - 02:34 AM.

[Kragmore]

Ok, I just have to point out one thing. It's not the same people working on the Game play as it is working on the Graphics.
With one exception, programmers. They are a very valuable and rare commodity who get moved between tasks quite often, especially on a smaller team.

The thing with graphics is that it takes ALOT of time to polish something up to the current level of fidelity and push it beyond. So a company have to put alot of cash in it's art department to push the graphical quality. The question is, is it worth it or do you lower the bar a bit to have a smaller art team but get out more props for the game?

And as a matter of fact, a AC wouldn't be as awesome as it is, no matter how much design had been put into it, if it didn't have all those beefy effects and sounds.

[Romulus Stahl]

xChaoSx, on 10 August 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

The potential of the engine is breath taking. Wonder how much they'll be able to eventually add into MWO!!

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=JV0L4aiHFS0

The graphics shown and the application are a bit apples to oranges with this game. The reason being is scale, if you are a soldier walking on the ground you see the grass, palm fronds over head, leaves on the trees, vines etc. Once you are off the ground (30 feet in the air) you no longer see those small details. If you are in a Mech you are detached from the perspective of a ground pounder soldier. Graphics can still be very nice at this perspective, but they have a different perspective.
Spend a day on the bridge of a 100' motor yacht, than get in the dingy; completely different perspectives on level of detail.

Edited by Romulus Stahl, 27 September 2012 - 06:02 AM.

[verybad]

Paullus Valcerus, on 10 August 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Gameplay>Graphics

Graphics+Gameplay=Win!!

Granted, doing really nice graphics like that isn't cheap, but It is possible to have both great graphics AND great gameplay. Still, current graphics are very nice.

[Overdrive]

verybad, on 27 September 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

Graphics+Gameplay=Win!!

Granted, doing really nice graphics like that isn't cheap, but It is possible to have both great graphics AND great gameplay. Still, current graphics are very nice.

I agree, just have both and everybody is happy. I love a good looking game and have been playing computer games now for 25+ years (my first game was Frogger in black and fluoro green...).

I don't see how playing for long periods of time gives me more of a right to an opinion to a 15yr old that just bought a new PC, but I'm seeing a trend in a few of these posts...

I've spent a heap of money on my computer because that's what I enjoy doing. I like to hear awesome sound, I love great visuals and I enjoy getting all the joysticks and whatever else I can to fully immerse myself in the game and just escape from the real world for awhile. If I enjoy a game I'll sit down for hours on end each day, for months/years until something newer and more exciting comes out.

Needless to say games like Minecraft didn't do it for me, and from what I can remember games like MW2 had amazing graphics for it's time (I remember being absolutely awestruck by the opening cinematics).

If you can have both, why sell yourself short?