Curse

JR · May 01, 2008, 02:01 PM // 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by CagedinSanity

How can anyone say that and not be wrong.
WoW is obviously more graphically appealing.

Though, in defense of the arguement, landscapes are nicer looking in GW. Basically, a lot of the areas you can't get to.
(Then again, a far-away view of the snowy mountains in Sunqua Vale is nice, and you can quest and fight inside them.)

That's very much a matter of personal opinion.

Both games have fantastic artistic styles, but they are alo both very different. In general terms Guild Wars goes with quite a gritty/edgey approach, whereas WoW has more of an exagerrated cartoony look.

CagedinSanity · May 01, 2008, 02:05 PM // 14:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

In general terms Guild Wars goes with quite a gritty/edgey approach, whereas WoW has more of an exagerrated cartoony look.

Fair enough. I still think GW doesn't look as good.

bhavv · May 01, 2008, 02:07 PM // 14:07

Age of Conan looks better then both GW and WoW combined, even with Lotro thrown in on top.

CagedinSanity · May 01, 2008, 02:14 PM // 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Age of Conan looks better then both GW and WoW combined, even with Lotro thrown in on top.

This is the age-old comparison between WoW and GW.
We're not talking about AoC, are we? No, shut up.

reanimatorX · May 01, 2008, 02:14 PM // 14:14

one thing I LOVE the most about WoW, I can pass through enemies! that means no more bodyblocking, attack stopping, gross rubberbanding, etc.

JR · May 01, 2008, 02:15 PM // 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Age of Conan looks better then both GW and WoW combined, even with Lotro thrown in on top.

...and as a side effect it will struggle to run on a lot of household PCs, which will have a defiante negative impact on their sales figures in the western market and completely cripple them in the (huge) asian market. It looks fairly pretty in the promotional screenshots, but was it a smart move by Funcom to use that engine? We will see.

I'll take performance and graphical style over polycount/bump maps any day, thanks.

bhavv · May 01, 2008, 02:18 PM // 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deleet

Hello mr. relativist

Ad 1, You have yet to prove that "Neither game is better".
Ad 2, It's not that hard really. Titles give an indication, make them ping their builds. Good players don't use crap builds.
Ad 3, I suggest that you read the AoC thread in off-topic forums. It doesn't look too bright IMO.

You have yet to prove that GW is any better then WoW. It isnt actually. WoW is far superior for PVE then GW will ever be, but GW is better for PVP.

Titles do not equal skill. Also, you can give a bad player a good skill bar, and he still wont know how to use it (ZOMG I can hit with any of my interupts, Broad Head Arrow sux).

I have been reading the AoC forums for almost a year now thanks. I dont care what hard core fans of one game with the idea that their game is the best have to say about another. 90% of the people that have played the AoC betas are enjoying it thoroughly and I hear nothing but praise about the game.

bhavv · May 01, 2008, 02:21 PM // 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

...and as a side effect it will struggle to run on a lot of household PCs, which will have a defiante negative impact on their sales figures in the western market and completely cripple them in the (huge) asian market. It looks fairly pretty in the promotional screenshots, but was it a smart move by Funcom to use that engine? We will see.

I'll take performance and graphical style over polycount/bump maps any day, thanks.

A PC to run AoC doesnt cost much nowadays. A mid range ATI 3870 or Nvidia 9600 GT is all you need for high details, and a LOT of people that play games already have one of these cards or better (Really, the 8800 GT right now is probably the most common card that gamers are using).

If you cant run AoC on your PC, I couldnt care less, boo hoo to you. I can, so I will play and enjoy the graphics very much

The minimum spec for the game is a 6600 GT, and really, if you dont have one of them or better today, just what are you doing playing games?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CagedinSanity

This is the age-old comparison between WoW and GW.
We're not talking about AoC, are we? No, shut up.

I can discuss whatever game I like. How many threads do we need for GW vs WoW?

Im bored of it, i've seen it too many times. I will compare GW / WoW to other games if I want to.

It seems that people that play any MMO are desperate to compare it to WoW and nothing else just because WoW has 10 million subscriptions.

JR · May 01, 2008, 02:28 PM // 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

A PC to run AoC doesnt cost much nowadays. A mid range ATI 3870 or Nvidia 9600 GT is all you need for high details, and a LOT of people that play games already have one of these cards or better (Really, the 8800 GT right now is probably the most common card that gamers are using).

If you cant run AoC on your PC, I couldnt care less, boo hoo to you. I can, so I will play and enjoy the graphics very much

The minimum spec for the game is a 6600 GT, and really, if you dont have one of them or better today, just what are you doing playing games?

When did you perform this survey of average PC specs worldwide, exactly?

My PC is more than capable of running AoC, but that was definately not my point. Big budget MMO titles need a large population of players, or the world feels empty and it's just not as fun. Cutting your possible population in half by releasing on a high spec engine is usually not a smart move. I've been there and done that.

Look at Warhammer, LotRO, Guild Wars 2, Aion... Smart/experienced developers are still aiming for their games to be playable on mid/low range PCs.

Rocky Raccoon · May 01, 2008, 02:33 PM // 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by CagedinSanity

How can anyone say that and not be wrong.
WoW is obviously more graphically appealing.

Though, in defense of the arguement, landscapes are nicer looking in GW. Basically, a lot of the areas you can't get to.
(Then again, a far-away view of the snowy mountains in Sunqua Vale is nice, and you can quest and fight inside them.)

WoW graphics are cartoony, which if you are 12 years old should appeal to you. GW graphics are by far much more realistic and beautiful.

bhavv · May 01, 2008, 02:34 PM // 14:34

Guild Wars 2 will not run on anything less then what AoC will run on lol.

If anything it will have a much higher requirement. Anet said it will run on MID RANGE PC's. A mid range PC right now is a 9600 GT or HD 3850, both of which are capable of playing AoC comfortably. In two years time, this requirement will be far higher.

Im not talking about PC specs worldwide, Im talking about 'GAMERS', people that play games. Head over to the AoC forums and you will see a thread every minute from desperate people asking for help on upgrading their PC to be able to play AoC.

I visit many gaming forums. People that play games and make up the market for computer games dont have PC's incapable of playing modern games. Assasins Creed is currently the number 3 selling game on the UK chart you know? Also Crysis is a very popular game, despite hardly being able to play well on max details on the best PC's that were available on its launch.

People with good PC's pay for games with good graphics. There is a huge market for them, and trust me, there are going to be lots of people playing AoC.

CagedinSanity · May 01, 2008, 02:35 PM // 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

WoW graphics are cartoony, which if you are 12 years old should appeal to you. GW graphics are by far much more realistic and beautiful.

Yep. These are very realistic.
I just saw some in my backyard earlier today.

(Eh, that pic hurts my arguement. Damn you, wonderful trees!)

BlackSephir · May 01, 2008, 02:37 PM // 14:37

You DO know that "graphics" doesn't equal "style/art" ?

bhavv · May 01, 2008, 02:37 PM // 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by CagedinSanity

Yep. These are very realistic.
I just saw some in my backyard earlier today.

To be honest, that is like 100 times better then anything I have seen in WoW.

netniwk · May 01, 2008, 02:39 PM // 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by CagedinSanity

Yep. These are very realistic.
I just saw some in my backyard earlier today.

(Eh, that pic hurts my arguement. Damn you, wonderful trees!)

If anything,you see (wow)gnomes in your backyard

Jetdoc · May 01, 2008, 02:49 PM // 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

WoW graphics are cartoony, which if you are 12 years old should appeal to you. GW graphics are by far much more realistic and beautiful.

I actually like WoW's diversity of content, but the graphics were the nail in the coffin for me...it's hard to get absorbed mentally in something when it looks like you're fighting with Bugs Bunny. Heck, even in their commercials (which should demonstrate their BEST graphics, IMO), you kinda sit back and laugh at the pixels on the TV.

Raiku · May 01, 2008, 02:56 PM // 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by invsblmn

Personally I think GW is the best game I've ever played. The EOTN content cements that. I find the Nordic theme very captivating. The music is fantastic - sounds very fittingly Wagnerian. The artwork is stunning - possibly the finest graphics I've ever seen on the PC barring some of the very latest releases. Also, Jora's a hottie - she looks like my ex. Great mini-games.

Hey I guess we are on the same boat! GW keeps getting better and better. Faction was a good expansion with the new skills. Nightfall with the awesome Hero system. Then EOTN with the newly way to adventuring by a book. The only thing I can suspect next is that GW2 is going to have more armor slots, more rewards, and more power to the player. Thus making it more interesting. (I am hoping they will take some WoW content and not just slap you in the face but BLOW you away. [Of course, Aion and Lineage 3 also have that opportunity as well.])

Quote:

Quests are interesting. This is the main thing in PvE that sets GW apart from WoW. Quests in WoW are mindless, the only parts of PvE that are even remotely challenging in WoW are the boss fights in the instances/raids.

Quest were indeed mindless. Now that they added Dailies.... it became even more robotic. Guildwars quest offer some story, but they aren't as rewarding as they are in WoW.

Quote:

Gear: less elitism, more customizability. Brilliant.

The gear balancing is Guild Wars is great! However, I suspect more features to be added in Guild Wars 2. Hopefully there will be more customizing and slots.

In my vision for a very interesting game is to have each character be unique and fashionable by their owner trait.

The main goal is to have the character reflect the player. Thus at any time if the player wants their character to be fat... BAM they are fat! But that doesnt affect the gameplay but only the looks.

Quote:

Only one thing drives me nuts about GW: the lack of an auction house.

Auction house would nerf a lot of prices on people selling things as it can be use to "benchmark" prices on items since many items do not have any benchmarks on them.

Quote:

I love the idea of districts. I like playing on the French server occasionally to practice my French.

I am waiting for the Japanese District

so I can practice my Japanese.

Quote:

The GW population is at least as mature as the WoW folks. Personally I'm not bothered by stupid people.

You'll get that everywhere.

Quote:

I just hope GW2 doesn't try to pander to the traditional MMORPG crowd too much and lose what made GW1 so unique. From what I've read GW2 wants to compromise. We'll see.

If I were to make GW2, I did upgrade GW1 System.

Their unlocking system is magnificent!

I would expand on my idea on how GW2... but I am not making the game :P

JR · May 01, 2008, 03:13 PM // 15:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Guild Wars 2 will not run on anything less then what AoC will run on lol.

Guild Wars 2 releases in 2 years, AoC releases this year. In two years time the mid range household PC will obviously be higher spec than it is now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

If anything it will have a much higher requirement. Anet said it will run on MID RANGE PC's.

Mid range PCs in what context? A mid range PC in say North America is very different to a mid range PC in the APAC region or globally. Untill they release some solid hardware requirements this is just useless speculation and semantics.

ANet know they have a large Asian market, and have put considerable effort into that with Guild Wars. There is no way they are going to cripple that, ala AoC, with unreasonable (for the region) requirements in Guild Wars 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

A mid range PC right now is a 9600 GT or HD 3850, both of which are capable of playing AoC comfortably. In two years time, this requirement will be far higher.

How is a 9600 GT in any way mid range? It sounds like you spend far too much time talking on forums to other hardcore gamers with nice rigs, and don't really have a clue about the average casual gamer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Head over to the AoC forums and you will see a thread every minute from desperate people asking for help on upgrading their PC to be able to play AoC.

I'm fairly sure that last setence backs up my point, rather than yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Also Crysis is a very popular game, despite hardly being able to play well on max details on the best PC's that were available on its launch.

Er, no. If you read any of the postmortems written about Crysis you will see that developers and industry experts all agree that the high spec requirements crippled Crysis' sales. It was a glorified tech demo of the engine, and not much more.

zwei2stein · May 01, 2008, 03:15 PM // 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

You DO know that "graphics" doesn't equal "style/art" ?

Also, good graphic engine does not equal good art.

---

Anyway: after reviewing AoConan, i am convinced it will sink. JR has huge point with fact that MMO needs to run well on average household PC otherwise it will die because of nonexistant population.

---

But to topic: WoW has some cool stuff, GW has some cool stuff. WoW majorly sucks as someting (Kill X of Y. Bring X of Y that drop from Z ... talk about timesinks.), but so does GW.

Only thing that really would benefit GW that can be taken from WoW is trading system and mail system. Nothing else. ITs no that there is not other good stuff, but that other stuff would damage GW (cough, reputation farming)

DarkNecrid · May 01, 2008, 03:19 PM // 15:19

Quote:

Cutting your possible population in half by releasing on a high spec engine is usually not a smart move. I've been there and done that.

*coughs*

Definitely.

There was other problems with that game besides the high specs though, even if it was low specs it wouldn't of fared well.