Curse

Plutoman · Jun 17, 2011, 06:16 PM // 18:16

I hope GW2 doesn't bump up graphics too much - or at least, provides support for both low and high end cards. I'm in college, I can't afford a new computer ;_;

Lishy · Jun 17, 2011, 07:30 PM // 19:30

I think low specs is what makes GW so awesome. They better not change it in GW2!

I was able to play Guild Wars on a MINI laptop used for school!

hunter · Jun 17, 2011, 07:48 PM // 19:48

yeah, thats RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing great. You can play it on your shitty laptop.

Problem is, if they make it playable on a shitty laptop, the graphics are going to suck by todays standards. I want at least a a game that will have beautiful graphics (note you scrubs, i said beautiful, not good aka cutting edge) so that it can at least compete with other games for at least the first 2-3 years of its life. You need some photo realism as well as artistic realism or whatever

WoW made the mistake of going so far into the stylized end of the spectrum that the graphics now look like a piece of shit. But again it was made primarily to target the 11-19 demographic followed by the 30+ basement dwellers (read: hardcore raiders).

My only real beef with GW1 is the lack of a Z axes and the very restrictive movement you are imposed into the map. Can't fall down the cliff, or even 2 stairs below if you are not meant to do so. Its quite retarded on areas like post searing ascalon where you can only move through a strait line and nothing else.

NerfHerder · Jun 17, 2011, 10:16 PM // 22:16

I say the graphics in GW still looks pretty good. Ive been watching gameplay videos of SWTOR lately and it doesnt look any better than GW1 imo. I always thought WoW looks really cheesy. And, I couldnt care less about poly count or what graphics engine is used, as long as it looks good.

Although, I do hope GW2 has a higher resolution function that takes advantage of todays newer graphics cards, but is still playable on your "basic" computer. One of the best features about GW1 is that you dont have to have a high end machine, (ie. disposable income) in order to play.

Charlie Dayman · Jun 17, 2011, 11:12 PM // 23:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by NerfHerder

One of the best features about GW1 is that you dont have to have a high end machine, (ie. disposable income) in order to play.

I forget where, but wasn't it said that so long as your computer can run GW1 it should be able to run GW2?

hunter · Jun 17, 2011, 11:28 PM // 23:28

1 thing you people don't understand is that GW2 is a MMO. As such it is supposed to be long lived. I wouldn't be surprised if Anet planned for that game to last for a good 10 years. (heck it took them like 5 to develop it)

Remember that a high end computer now will be considered shitty 3 years down the road. Therefore unless Anet upgrades the graphics and source engine somewhere down the road, if they go for low end specs now, it will simply mean that in 2 years it will be very ...very low end.

This is why i actually hope that when its released, the game will be optimized for middle-high end systems. If not high end. They can always add in ways to scale down graphics and such but you have to realize that whats high end this year, will be low end 2 years from now, when the game is still in its early stages.

Rocky Raccoon · Jun 17, 2011, 11:38 PM // 23:38

If the game is fun that is all that matters, graphics are a bonus.

Rook Parcade · Jun 18, 2011, 01:45 AM // 01:45

For me, whilst I like GW graphics, it's the animations that I love. Everything (except maybe walking up stairs) just looks so natural and fluid. Moreso than the GW2 trailers which kinda annoys me, although maybe I'm just using my rose tinted glasses.

hunter · Jun 18, 2011, 01:59 AM // 01:59

While nice, the animations are in fact quite static. There is no block, no dodge, and no lower and upper body movement (that is attacking while moving, or while strafing).

This is partly due to the engine being particularly limited for even when the game came out (have a look at the wow game engine, much much better and both games came out at the same time)

Basically, while my warriors sword animations are nice (there are 2 of them) watching her get smacked constantly while carrying a huge ass shield is getting old. Right now all the shield is for is to raise your armor value and to fill in the item for your offhand.

Heck guys, even older games like Diable 2 had blocking in it, where a block would incur a block animation, or dodge.

IlikeGW · Jun 18, 2011, 02:18 AM // 02:18

Guild Wars is really very old at this point. I mean it was released to run fine on 2005 systems. Why even debate the graphics compared to modern titles, it makes no sense. And the bloom filter you can shut off to make the game look substantially clearer.

Verene · Jun 18, 2011, 02:21 AM // 02:21

Quote:

Problem is, if they make it playable on a shitty laptop, the graphics are going to suck by todays standards.

Games made six years ago are going to have graphics that suck by today's standards, period. Even ones that were then made to take advantage of the tech available at the time.

Compare Perfect Dark Zero, which came out in late 2005 (Xbox 360 launch title) with Battlefield 3, coming out in a few months. There's no comparison. And that's just console shots there - PCs advance in tech way faster than consoles do.

So to say that GW doesn't stand up to today's standards is silly, because anyone that'd actually expect it to is an idiot.

Charlie Dayman · Jun 18, 2011, 02:37 AM // 02:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Verene

Games made six years ago are going to have graphics that suck by today's standards, period.

This.

From what we can see of the gameplay videos, the graphics are pretty solid. But instead of relying on an engine that requires the latest tech to run at 100%, they're letting their art team go crazy with creating a visually memorable game. Like the video someone posted earlier, aesthetics > graphics.

The same can be said for GW1. It's an old game, but the design of its environments are memorable. Would uber-graphics help? Certainly, though it's not really needed.

thedarkmarine · Jun 18, 2011, 03:36 AM // 03:36

half life 2 was still amazing after 6 years.

so no, no period, not yours

Verene · Jun 18, 2011, 03:49 AM // 03:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

half life 2 was still amazing after 6 years.

so no, no period, not yours

I didn't say the game would suck, I said that no game that old is going to have graphics that match current standards.

HL2 may be a great game, but it still doesn't look anywhere near as nice as anything that came out six years after it did. However, it doesn't need to, it's an old game, and good games don't need shiny graphics to carry them.

Premium Unleaded · Jun 18, 2011, 03:53 AM // 03:53

I have a gtx 460, yet still run it all on low except vsync and the res itself. I don't need my system to run warmer than needed and really don't give a damn about the graphics outside of what's necessary at this point tbh. I also started this game way back on a mid-low tier pc w/ a MX440, and it ran fine then from what I remembered.

Frankly, that person is just talking complete shit. My personal preferences aside, the concept/design of the game world is very good as mentioned

Urcscumug · Jun 18, 2011, 01:11 PM // 13:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rook Parcade

Everything (except maybe walking up stairs) just looks so natural and fluid.

Except assassins running.

thedarkmarine · Jun 18, 2011, 01:14 PM // 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Verene

I didn't say the game would suck, I said that no game that old is going to have graphics that match current standards.

HL2 may be a great game, but it still doesn't look anywhere near as nice as anything that came out six years after it did. However, it doesn't need to, it's an old game, and good games don't need shiny graphics to carry them.

sure it did. it was the one that pushed for all the hdr bloom, and still looked awesome 6 years after initial release, 3 after episode 2

Tommy's · Jun 18, 2011, 01:22 PM // 13:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadar

To make the game look good turn off post process effects. I can't stand that fake bloom/glow look.

Thank you! I wasn't aware of that option, and it indeed is A LOT better

jazilla · Jun 18, 2011, 07:13 PM // 19:13

I still think GW is a decent looking game for the era in which it was made.

*Darcy* · Jun 18, 2011, 10:17 PM // 22:17

I bought GW and Civ4 on the same day for my son. He couldn't play Civ4 due to the high-resource graphics as you would tell your settler to go somewhere and then have supper while you waited. He could play GW with no problems.

This was a case of ArenaNet smarts. Their low polygon count meant that I bought GW for myself and then Factions, Nightfall & EotN. My son bought the followups for himself and the whole set for his son. So thanks to a low-polygon count and gorgeous graphics design, ArenaNet made a fistful of sales and Civ4 sat on the shelf forever with no additional purchases of the box.