www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Friday, September 08, 2006
Best-selling game, worst graphics
Blizzard just announced that their number of subscribers finally has creeped up to 7 million. And it is already clear that in the year 2006, just like in 2005, World of Warcraft is the best-selling PC game of the year. But if you compare screenshots of WoW with the other top contenders in PC games from this year and last, you will notice that it is miles behind them in terms of graphics. Why are game developers pushing technical advances in graphics so much, if it seems obvious that the customers prefer a less good looking game with better gameplay?
I'm not saying that games like Prey, Oblivion, or Half-Life 2 : Episode One aren't pretty. But is "pretty" really attracting the customers? Or does it end up driving potential buyers away, because a good number of them have a PC which is over 2 years old, and just has a budget graphics card, on which the new games would either not run at all, have impossible frame rates, or not look pretty any more.
Another possibility is that the top edge of current graphics is just falling into the Uncanny Valley, where game characters are too realistic to just appear like game icons, and not real enough to appear human.
But whatever the graphics, in the end people buy games for the gameplay. Whatever I thought of the graphics of Oblivion, the reason I didn't play it was that I didn't like the controls. The reason why especially first-person shooter games have to tout their graphics that much is that their gameplay is all the same (althoug Prey stands out for being innovative). So the upcoming Crysis will top the chart for a few weeks, and than drop quickly and be forgotten. If you want your game to be in the charts still after 2 years, you need to have better gameplay than that.
- posted by Tobold @ 11:32 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
WoW is pretty - it just puts more emphasis on graphical styling than it does on graphical complexity. It's kind of like the games that came out a couple years ago that were all cell-shaded; they were attempting to appeal to a certain visual style as opposed to patching in an intensive graphics engine. And it worked. Blizzard has always had an excellent art department; even with their lower-quality graphics, there are still times I look around in WoW and realize that they've got some really gorgeous scenes.
That said, imagine their room for improvement. :)
That said, imagine their room for improvement. :)
# posted by 
: 8/9/06 15:11
: 8/9/06 15:11
Yep, I'd join the chorus here and strongly disagree with you on WoW's graphical quality. In fact, of all the games on show at Leipzig this year, WoW was still the most attractive and immersive.
It's the art direction. The engine is primitive as hell, but it doesn't matter because it's used brilliantly within a fantastic and quite unique artistic style. You can have all the stencil shadows and per-pixel lighting you like, but the fact is that as players, we want to look cool, and for the world to look cool, and for the stuff we're killing to look cool, and WoW is still achieving that better than the competition.
(LoTR Online, for example - looks SO DULL!)
It's the art direction. The engine is primitive as hell, but it doesn't matter because it's used brilliantly within a fantastic and quite unique artistic style. You can have all the stencil shadows and per-pixel lighting you like, but the fact is that as players, we want to look cool, and for the world to look cool, and for the stuff we're killing to look cool, and WoW is still achieving that better than the competition.
(LoTR Online, for example - looks SO DULL!)
I totally agree that WoW has higher artistic quality. But I was only talking about polygon count, or whatever else you want to measure technological quality with.
So true So true. Guild Wars has sharper graphics and more realistic environments, and yet WOW is the game that claims my 15 bucks per month because it is simple, fun, and social. I do like first person shooters like DOOM, FEAR,and others, but after playing an MMO, they just seem bland by comparison because there is noone to talk to. I am one of the gamers out there who have no problem shelling out my hard earned currency for a top knotch machine, but I am thankful that Blizz had the sense to keep their requirements low enough for me to quest with as many people as I do.
One thing Blizzard has always done is have their graphics be less technically advanced than everyone elses, and make up for it with a cohesive art direction.
This has a huge advantage, because it guarantees that the game will play on the vast majority of systems out there.
I have a cheap laptop with a non-ATI/nVidia video card. I'm pretty sure this laptop would self-destruct if I tried to play a game with more advanced graphics. Yet WoW runs perfectly on it.
This has a huge advantage, because it guarantees that the game will play on the vast majority of systems out there.
I have a cheap laptop with a non-ATI/nVidia video card. I'm pretty sure this laptop would self-destruct if I tried to play a game with more advanced graphics. Yet WoW runs perfectly on it.
I join the chorus. Texture over polys doesn't mean 'worse' graphics. It means less expensive and 'better' graphics.
In comparison, Archlord just looks muddy. Too many jaggies, too many colors next to each other on the palette (grey, brown, greyish-brown, greenish-grey, and greyish-greenish-brown! Enjoy!), though I'm sure it's 'better' by a technical standard of poly counts and how much horsepower it takes to drive it.
It must piss off 3d chip and card manufacturers that WoW is gutting the perpetual upgrade cycle by proving that art direction is more important than hardware.
In comparison, Archlord just looks muddy. Too many jaggies, too many colors next to each other on the palette (grey, brown, greyish-brown, greenish-grey, and greyish-greenish-brown! Enjoy!), though I'm sure it's 'better' by a technical standard of poly counts and how much horsepower it takes to drive it.
It must piss off 3d chip and card manufacturers that WoW is gutting the perpetual upgrade cycle by proving that art direction is more important than hardware.
# posted by : 8/9/06 21:31
: 8/9/06 21:31
WoW is very cartoony. I thought that when I was playing EQ, and even playing it now, it seems that way. However, it's easy on the eyes, and not over the top. It looks, to not use a better word, fun.
As far as the best selling...as someone posted in my topic over on KTR, WoW is MMORPG on Easy mode. It really is.
As far as the best selling...as someone posted in my topic over on KTR, WoW is MMORPG on Easy mode. It really is.
# posted by : 8/9/06 21:35
: 8/9/06 21:35
Blizzard says they like to make games which are easy to learn and hard to master. I think the same must apply to graphics performance. It doesn't take much of a PC to run the game, but then better performance is always around the corner with another upgrade...
I started playing WoW on a 5-year-old laptop (P4/512MB/64MB) and *loved* it. But eventually I grew tired of the slowdowns in IF, so I upgraded to 1GB RAM. Heaven! But a few months later I wanted better than 800x600 graphics, so I upgraded my desktop to a 3-year-old system with an ATI9600. 1024x768, and smoother play! But then I started getting into PvP, where milliseconds count, and I started noticing lag when I was surrounded by opponents... So now I upgraded to a brand-new IBM T60p (Core Duo / 2GB / ATI FireGL V5200) that plays like butter in the biggest AV battles. At 1600x1200. That's pretty.
I started playing WoW on a 5-year-old laptop (P4/512MB/64MB) and *loved* it. But eventually I grew tired of the slowdowns in IF, so I upgraded to 1GB RAM. Heaven! But a few months later I wanted better than 800x600 graphics, so I upgraded my desktop to a 3-year-old system with an ATI9600. 1024x768, and smoother play! But then I started getting into PvP, where milliseconds count, and I started noticing lag when I was surrounded by opponents... So now I upgraded to a brand-new IBM T60p (Core Duo / 2GB / ATI FireGL V5200) that plays like butter in the biggest AV battles. At 1600x1200. That's pretty.
Another vote for art direction, here. The only more beautiful game on the market right now is Guild Wars Factions, and I say that as someone who finds World of Warcraft's visual style mildly irritating.
It reminds me of early '90s Disney movies, which I'll bet appeals greatly to many people in a way they don't notice.
Simplicity and style go a long way, and it's really one of those things that either hits home with you or just doesn't connect at all. The same things were said about Wind Waker, and the same criticisms are now being made of Team Fortress 2.
WoW's graphics are top notch; its style is so unique and unapologetically cartoony that to some it will always seem cheap while to others it will seem exquisite long after the graphics actually are outdated. (I feel this way about Anarchy Online.)
It reminds me of early '90s Disney movies, which I'll bet appeals greatly to many people in a way they don't notice.
Simplicity and style go a long way, and it's really one of those things that either hits home with you or just doesn't connect at all. The same things were said about Wind Waker, and the same criticisms are now being made of Team Fortress 2.
WoW's graphics are top notch; its style is so unique and unapologetically cartoony that to some it will always seem cheap while to others it will seem exquisite long after the graphics actually are outdated. (I feel this way about Anarchy Online.)
yeah its true but remember thatits hard trying to make a mmo look good like have all of the features and gameplay WoW has, into a computer back then when it came out now, so they might have chosen gameplay over graphic which was smart.. if it came out around 2006 it would have no excuse why it looks crappy.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 11/7/08 04:58
: 11/7/08 04:58<< Home
