228 replies to this topic

[Onmyoudo]

M A L I C E, on 20 February 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

I mean, it's even a PC exclusive title! They don't even have to cater to 10 year old console hardware!

They do have to cater to the "casual" PC gaming crowd though - that is to say those without a top-end or even mid-range computer. That's the reason MMOs always look pants; they cannot afford to alienate a potentially sizeable portion of the playerbase by high requirements.

[Mister Blastman]

OP:

Back when I was a kid, we played COMBAT... and we LIKED IT!



MWO has awesome graphics.

[Bloodsport]

I think it looks great, one of the first games in a long time thats made me want to save money for a monster dell 30" TFT

[Sifright]

M A L I C E, on 20 February 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

Yes but you're missing something that pretty much everyone misses in the console era.

PC titles can scale!

Yes that's right! You can go from essentially bare polygons to Crysis 3 level beauty in the same game!

IF it's coded properly. IF they give you the proper option. IF they bother to develop for the high end at all in the first place (which MWO has obviously eschewed).

Again, I love the game, but let's be real here, the game is just plainly ugly for a 2013 title.

I can't believe we are agreeing.... eeee.

[Kain]

[Sifright]

Kain, on 20 February 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

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

Vibrant and pleasing colours.

Brotip: my favourite mech game is MW2.

I still play multiplayer text games.

Edited by Sifright, 20 February 2013 - 08:24 AM.

[tyrone dunkirk]

I just can't look at this game and call it ugly. Bland, dull colors maybe, yes. It's not the livliest set of environments I've ever played on, but I can't shake the feeling that I'm looking at an ACTUAL lance of battlemechs when I finish my startup sequencing and look around at my lance mates.
And it's not like I'm running on a high end machine either, but maybe it's just my mindset as a mechwarrior fan. I'd been playing Mechwarrior 4 Mercs since it was released, and long after mektek made their expansion; by comparison, this is gold in my eyes, and I don't mind if I keep on viewing it that way

[Laserhupe]

A long time ago....

in a (graphic) galaxy far far away....[2009]



please take a look at the lower right side "IN GAME FOOTAGE".

i like the game, but my gtx680 is really bored with it

[Mavairo]

Taizan, on 20 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

[/size]
I was - because you are exaggerating by calling it a "grey blurred out mess".
To me the colours look very natural, trees are dark green, water is clear blue (check out the waterfall / river on Forest Colony for example), ground is brownish / mossy green. And the snow is grey-white.

Maybe we are talking about two different things here, the maps all generally are a bit hazy / foggy and that adds a bit of greyish bloom. I still can see enough coloured details, there just aren't very many bright colours, but then again this is not Legoland.

You don't actually live where there is natural terrain do you?

MWO is a dull flat lifeless landscape. It's one of my largest gripes with the game (it used to be the utterly poor frame rate.. which while it has improved since it's last few patches it's still not where it should be. Especially when I can play Crysis 1 and 2 at 60 fps on extreme (aka max settings) with no issues and this game is still hopping along at 35 to 45. That's 20 FPS higher than it was mind. And yes before you say it, Crysis 2 is a Cry Engine 3 game.) is that it's far far too behind the graphics curve especially for as powerful as the requirements are to have a 30+ FPS rate, and good settings.

I'm all about the gameplay, but in modern gaming especially when you seek out a high end engine like Cry Engine 3, it damn well better look and get better FPS than an early release 360 title.

Edited by Mavairo, 20 February 2013 - 08:35 AM.

[Spoon]

Mister Blastman, on 20 February 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

OP:

Back when I was a kid, we played COMBAT... and we LIKED IT!



MWO has awesome graphics.

Sure, if you ignore every other game that has been released for the past 10 years, it looks absolutely stunning! We sure came a long way from that atari huh? Well gramps, hold on to your seat and search the youtubes for some Crysis footage. You'd be absolutely blown away by how much better that game looks.
While using the same engine, MWO has absolutely horrible bland and simple terrain in comparison.

Laserhupe, on 20 February 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

A long time ago....

in a (graphic) galaxy far far away....[2009]



please take a look at the lower right side "IN GAME FOOTAGE".

i like the game, but my gtx680 is really bored with it

Its absolutely mindboggling how much better that trailer looks compared to the actual game we got...
Man, that trailer got me so so pumped for this game. It sure turned into a disappointment at the end.

[Sifright]

Mavairo, on 20 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

You don't actually live where there is natural terrain do you?

MWO is a dull flat lifeless landscape. It's one of my largest gripes with the game (it used to be the utterly poor frame rate.. which while it has improved since it's last few patches it's still not where it should be. Especially when I can play Crysis 1 and 2 at 60 fps on extreme (aka max settings) with no issues and this game is still hopping along at 35 to 45. That's 20 FPS higher than it was mind. And yes before you say it, Crysis 2 is a Cry Engine 3 game.) is that it's far far too behind the graphics curve especially for as powerful as the requirements are to have a 30+ FPS rate, and good settings.

I'm all about the gameplay, but in modern gaming especially when you seek out a high end engine like Cry Engine 3, it damn well better look and get better FPS than an early release 360 title.

This -^

No terrain any where looks like it does in PGI land except maybe a desert or a city that has been hit by artillery constantly for the last few days and has a massive layer of dust over everything.

Everything just looks... Dead.

[Mazzyplz]

you can't make the graphics like single player, this is multi player with 24 people (soon - for now 16 people)
running on a variety of rigs.

if this was single player the graphics would be the full power of cry engine. but it's kept simple with low textures etc so you can load it fast, play it fast, no hickups, and without too much advantage over someone with a bad rig

[Mister Blastman]

Spoon, on 20 February 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Sure, if you ignore every other game that has been released for the past 10 years, it looks absolutely stunning! We sure came a long way from that atari huh? Well gramps, hold on to your seat and search the youtubes for some Crysis footage. You'd be absolutely blown away by how much better that game looks.
While using the same engine, MWO has absolutely horrible bland and simple terrain in comparison.

I've played lots of games in the last decade including Crysis and Far Cry 3. I'm happy with MWO. It looks fine.

Gameplay > Graphics ANY AND EVERY DAY!

The more time devs spend on the game and not graphics, the better the experience for all of us in the long run.

[tyrone dunkirk]

Mister Blastman, on 20 February 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

I've played lots of games in the last decade including Crysis and Far Cry 3. I'm happy with MWO. It looks fine.

Gameplay > Graphics ANY AND EVERY DAY!

The more time devs spend on the game and not graphics, the better the experience for all of us in the long run.

This. MWO doesn't have top of the line graphics that push the limits and puts every other game to shame, it's so miserable. Then again, I do understand the gripes that it utilizes the cryengine and doesn't have the same graphical prowess as Crysis 3, but the fun gameplay coupled with the still-sharp visuals is really a combination that makes this game really fun for me to play; not to mention it's the revival of mechwarrior, so that's kind of cool too.

Again, I don't usually play super high-end graphically capable games, and prefer console gamplay to PC ( personal preference ) but MWO has some of the sharpest visuals I've seen out of quite a few games.

[Mavairo]

Mazzyplz, on 20 February 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

you can't make the graphics like single player, this is multi player with 24 people (soon - for now 16 people)
running on a variety of rigs.

if this was single player the graphics would be the full power of cry engine. but it's kept simple with low textures etc so you can load it fast, play it fast, no hickups, and without too much advantage over someone with a bad rig

So you haven't seen Crysis games in multiplayer, or Battlefield 3 for that matter?

Or hell even RIFT? I mention the non CryEngine games here, because they manage to look utterly gorgeous, with large scale battles, going on constantly, and in RIFT's case also has to handle a fully open world too.
This game is a niche title, no matter how hard anyone pretends otherwise, the kind of people that play this game, are gaming enthusiasts. Even the rigs on the more modest side can take an xbox 360 kick it, beat it, shank it's kidneys, and in general make it into a red headed step child. We're the sports car owners of pcdom.

To get 35 to 45 FPS in this game (32 by the way is on average what Film plays at because any less and your eye will actually catch the time between frames), on High (not full max) you have to have a rig right now that can play Crysis 2, Crysis 1 on Extreme and get 60 fps. While looking like a early gen XBox 360 title. There's some very poor optimization going on in this game. For something hogging up that much performance there isn't a whole lot of bling bling going on, and there's nothing that stressful on the rig either in the matches.

Edited by Mavairo, 20 February 2013 - 08:48 AM.

[nksharp]

Star citizen looks better :/

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Sifright, on 20 February 2013 - 03:33 AM, said:

man thats a crappy excuse for the graphics being washed out and filtered into an ugly mess.

i'm just glad film grain isn't hard locked anymore, and that my dad's pc can play this game rather well now.

[Spheroid]

The new Alpine map is pretty ugly. I enjoy it for more open engagement ranges but look at how BF3 handled snow terrain on Alborz mountain. Way, way better.

The mech models are fine, but why are cockpit textures so low resolution?

[Dishevel]

tyrone dunkirk, on 20 February 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

I can't even fathom this topic. You think this game is ugly? Go back and play the graphical masterpiece that was Mechwarrior 2, and then post some compare/contrast pictures. I agree that most of the maps are kind of dark and a little bland when it comes to color palette, but it's not so big a deal that I'd go out and call the game an ugly pile of junk. I'm still looking foward to the day when they put in a tropical island-esque map; that'd be an environment I'd like to play on.

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!

[nksharp]

http://deadendthrills.com/

Modded skyrim makes this game look old.