228 replies to this topic

[Chrithu]

Simple answer to question in title: Because game engines don't come with finished artwork. Visually a game only gets as good as the artists working on the project are. No matter what engine you use.

For instance: Were I to make a game today I would see to it that I get the guys that worked on the lighting in Mass Effect 2 and 3 into my team because those people did an awesome job.

Edited by Jason Parker, 20 February 2013 - 10:01 AM.

[nksharp]

Here we go, DHB members using the 'beta' cop out.

They are taking our money and there are no more stat wipes.

This is the final version of the game, they are simply improving it as they go.

[Dishevel]

nksharp, on 20 February 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

I was comparing this game to a game that came out recently, since you know, they are more relevant than older games.

What you just posted makes NO ******* sense at all. Why would I compare games 6 years apart when you can compare a whole slew of games that are coming out or are out in the same year that is a better comparision.

Did you also know the iphone 5 is more powerful than the iphone 1???

HERP DERP, post more nonsensical garbage, PLEASE.

Edit : An even better example is comparing the game to a game made in the same engine to show how good it could be :

That looks nice but I see no gameplay footage there. Only cinematics.

[nksharp]

I posted the wrong video

[Inertiaman]

Tice Daurus, on 20 February 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

HERPY DURPY EA or Blizzard or Microsoft HURRR DUUUUR

Funnily enough all three of those companies started out with 1-3 people and are now massive because THEY DIDN'T SUCK. So please, stick the Mom and Pop Software bs in the same place that PGI stuck our five million dollars.

Dishevel, on 20 February 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

That looks nice but I see no gameplay footage there. Only cinematics.

It's all in engine work. 3m on for some first person.

[nksharp]

I must say though, I do like our character models. They appear to be taken straight from MW4.

[Vizzini]

Looks fine to me, but I played MW2 in wireframe.

Stay off my lawn!

Edited by Vizzini, 20 February 2013 - 10:10 AM.

[Tice Daurus]

nksharp, on 20 February 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Here we go, DHB members using the 'beta' cop out.

They are taking our money and there are no more stat wipes.

This is the final version of the game, they are simply improving it as they go.

First off, the dev's don't need defending. But since you want to bring DHB into a p i s s i n g contest...it's probably because the DEV's do come to us from time to time because many of the members of DHB were around at the begining launch of CLOSED BETA, when we were here back in early May-June, and we worked with the DEV's. And from time to time, once in a great while, they still visit and say hello on our TS3 channel and they ask us how they are doing. It's probably because they value our opinions and we tell them straight up how we feel about the game and can act as mature adults and give them constructive feedback without acting like d-bags.

Oh and if you took the time to read the forums like some of us do, there maybe another stat wipe possible as they are considering taking stats and wiping them in order to redo ELO. They are considering that. Read the forums.
Here let me do it for you....lazy people...

http://mwomercs.com/...9691-stat-wipe/

And again...it's BETA. I can say it because it's still OPEN BETA. When the DEV's say the product is in final release form, then it's not in BETA. And they may still add more mechs and more maps, and more content, but for the most part it will be then officially finished. But right now...it's still BETA.

Edited by Tice Daurus, 20 February 2013 - 10:48 AM.

[Tarman]

Spoon, on 20 February 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

As someone else already pointed out earlier in this thread. Yes you can.
That's the wonderful thing about the PC, you can make the game scale. That's what all the little sliders in the graphical options are for.

Then again Battlefield 3 alone completely invalidates your post, as that game sounds and looks amazing and has support for way more players in a match than MWO will probably ever have.

That's because Battlefield is made by a giant megacorporation with the financial backing of a small government. PGI has no such resources.

[Budor]

Tarman, on 20 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

That's because Battlefield is made by a giant megacorporation with the financial backing of a small government. PGI has no such resources.

Pretty much. They got the best engine on the market atm. and tons of money for tons of people to work with it. It still lacks mechs ^^

Edited by Budor, 20 February 2013 - 10:19 AM.

[tyrone dunkirk]

Dishevel, on 20 February 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

I can't even fathom how you can try to prove the point that this game has wonderful graphics by asking us to compare it to a game that came out 18 years ago.
WTF!

Because the point the topic is trying to make is that this game looks ugly, plain and simple. Just as plain and simple is the fact that if you compare it to it's predecessors, it's far from ugly and still has sharper textures and graphics than plenty of games that come out today. WTF?! indeed.

Spoon, on 20 February 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

on.


Actually MWO is anything but sharp. As the devs attempt to cover everything up in massive post processing blur and filters.


That much is very apparant!

Considering you prefer ancient console hardware, I'm not suprised you havent had much to compare mwo with!

While I do prefer console gameplay, it doesn't mean I haven't seen screens and videos showcasing the tech the PC games have to work with, and I'm very much aware of how much the 'tech has advanced sicned the 360 basically hit it's graphical capacity. That said, I'm not so overwhelmed with the graphics of games that if I notice some barely less-than-excellent textures I'll be apalled. The graphics in MWO are anything but sub-standard, and while your opinion may vary from mine, and that's fine, I still don't see how the game could be considered ugly.
Again, bland and dull colors that make the maps less than lively, I totally agree. N64 graphics, not quite. I haven't played a really ugly game since I bought Aliens Colonial Marines expecting it to be marginally better than Duke Nukem Forever, or I played MW4 Mercs expecting it to look better than MW3. Either way, the fact that I like the way a controler feels in my hand compared to a mouse and keyboard doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether or not I can compare the graphical capabilities of PC and console games. Then, that's just my opinion.

[nksharp]

Tice Daurus, on 20 February 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

First off, the dev's don't need defending. But since you want to bring DHB into a p i s s i n g contest...it's probably because the DEV's do come to us from time to time because many of the members of DHB were around at the begining launch of CLOSED BETA,

I forgot, you were the only clan who played this back in closed beta, your word must come from god.

To bad they don't seem to listen to reason or even answer questions they receive as evidenced by numerous ask the devs post which they simply cherry pick the easiest ones.

I truly hope they start picking up the pace with new mechs and maps because if there is no competitive play or much end game, I see no hope for this game outside of their casual market buying new hero mechs.

Edited by nksharp, 20 February 2013 - 10:21 AM.

[Mavairo]

Tarman, on 20 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

That's because Battlefield is made by a giant megacorporation with the financial backing of a small government. PGI has no such resources.

Okay, then Trion.

Trion was a tiny company and they've hit it big with RIFT. RIFT looks way prettier than MWO and has alot more going on in terms of potential pc havoc inducing issues. Not only this but they used their own engine to make the game with as well. They have had to do more work from scratch than PGI certainly has, and continually do so. They manage content additions constantly (and I'm not talking just a mech here or there, full new instances, quests, story lines, critter design, map area design etc), and they are now working on two more titles coming.

Size of a company and resources aren't the be all end all that people who aren't familiar with gaming think it is. You can infact do more with less.

MWO has alot of potential, but it's on the precipice of pulling a Cryptic Studios and sending the game head long into a death spiral before it can hit it's full stride, and the graphics quality vs the performance reqs of the pc is just one example of that.

You don't build something like a Ferrari, only have it Perform like a Camry and call it a success. We were promised the Ferrari. I'll settle for a Mustang GT really, but we're more closely getting the proverbial Camry than getting a 'Stang let alone the Ferrari.

Edited by Mavairo, 20 February 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[jakucha]

There's no reason to complain before the game is updated to the latest DX versions, and out of beta.

Edited by jakucha, 20 February 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[KovarD]

Sifright, on 20 February 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

You know what that image has that MWO doesn't?

Vibrant and pleasing colours.

Because Toy Story is a cartoon for kids. Kids like vibrant and oversatured colors.

[J4ckInthebox]

Quote

How Can A Cryengine Game Be So Ugly?

How can your face be so ugly ?

[Tarman]

Mavairo, on 20 February 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

Okay, then Trion.

Trion was a tiny company and they've hit it big with RIFT. RIFT looks way prettier than MWO and has alot more going on in terms of potential pc havoc inducing issues. Not only this but they used their own engine to make the game with as well. They have had to do more work from scratch than PGI certainly has, and continually do so. They manage content additions constantly (and I'm not talking just a mech here or there, full new instances, quests, story lines, critter design, map area design etc), and they are now working on two more titles coming.

Size of a company and resources aren't the be all end all that people who aren't familiar with gaming think it is. You can infact do more with less.

MWO has alot of potential, but it's on the precipice of pulling a Cryptic Studios and sending the game head long into a death spiral before it can hit it's full stride, and the graphics quality vs the performance reqs of the pc is just one example of that.

Didn't say it was the be-all end-all. But a lot of the dust getting kicked up over this is specifically comparing this game to AAA titles, not this game you just mentioned. I personally find it to be based in an overinflated sense of entitlement to topnotch everything all the time right away. I hear a lot of THIS GAME NOT PERFECT THEREFORE IT IS TERRIBLE kinds of black/white attitudes.

[Adrienne Vorton]

i gotta admit: i have a beta account for Warface... that one is CE3, is not even a downloadgame,but a browserbased one (similar to unity webplayer or the one BF:play4free uses) AND it´s DX9...

...and it looks really good plus runs very very smooth...

so i guess it´s possible for PGI to achieve a good looking, smooth running game even with dx9... but the engine IS optimized for 1st person shooters (with people,not ´Mechs...the people are already in the engine, Mechs are not ...), PGI has a lot of work to adjust it for MW i guess..

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 20 February 2013 - 10:36 AM.

[Budor]

Mavairo, on 20 February 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

Okay, then Trion. Rift.

Rift is fugly. Not so much on the technical side but the art design is awfull.

I think MWO looks really good as far as the mechs, effects and animations go.

The maps lack though. Forrest Colony is nice in the standard version and River city looks good to (although it has horrible LOD issues since the "performance pass") so does caustic but the other maps are somehow uninspired.

Frozen city is well foggy and thats it. The night version has a cool skybox and people like it because you can finally see the mechs clearly on a mwo map but the buildings look very bland. Copy pasted all over the place.

River night might look good but its thermal city so yeah.

Alpine looks flat out boring. It severely lacks any sort of clutter, vegetation/rocks or stuff going on in the skybox. No idea if its due to technical limitations (fps) or playtesting the layout but the "art/design" couldnt have taken that long... The icey layer on the mountains is kind of nifty though ^^

Edited by Budor, 20 February 2013 - 10:42 AM.

[Tice Daurus]

nksharp, on 20 February 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

I forgot, you were the only clan who played this back in closed beta, your word must come from god.

To bad they don't seem to listen to reason or even answer questions they receive as evidenced by numerous ask the devs post which they simply cherry pick the easiest ones.

I truly hope they start picking up the pace with new mechs and maps because if there is no competitive play or much end game, I see no hope for this game outside of their casual market buying new hero mechs.

I never said we were the only clan. And we're not a clan. We're mercs. And not tooting our own horn, but we're one of the biggest merc groups out there. We've got well over 200+ active members right now. But we were definitely one of the earliest groups out there playing closed BETA.

And what bug flew up your nose dude? They are answering questions. However, when the questions come from self-indulgent wieners who constantly bash them, rip on their work and have no ability to have an open mind and can see from their side of things, no, they aren't going answer YOUR questions. No I would much rather you say "Thank you DEV's for busting your *** with a limited small staff and bringing back one of the best game franchises of the business from a near decade long hiatus of slumber and we appreciate the hard work of solid 10-12 hours a day daily work they put in nearly each day."

EDITED: I removed some of the a-holish remarks, because I was coming off with a holier than thou attitude and being a jerk right back. My apologies.

Edited by Tice Daurus, 20 February 2013 - 10:38 AM.