Curse

Darksun · Mar 12, 2007, 03:04 PM // 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redfeather1975

Liar!

Really? Do you remember where?
Because my friends play with gfx cards that don't support bump maps well at all. If they'd enter an area using bump maps their framerate would drop to 5fps just like that.

Umm.. if they don't support bump maps then why would the framerate drop? It would even be implemented. Either is supports it poorly (and runs slow) or it doesn't support it at all (and just runs diffuse at normal speed) The game does, in fact, use bump maps already. Look at the rocks on the Character select screen. (If your cpu support bump)

Bryant Again · Mar 12, 2007, 03:20 PM // 15:20

Regarding bump-maps: I know that the footprints are. I think the textures in Elona just look like they're bump-mapped. They just texture or color them to the prominant color of the sky. You can see in the log-in screen. I can post a pic when I get home.

But as far as graphics go, I would like shadows to actually shadow. It irks me sooo bad that they're the same level of brightness, be it when they're in the sun or under the shade of a tree.

Loviatar · Mar 12, 2007, 04:44 PM // 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

Exactly - this is why I've been waiting to upgrade my computer.

If I had to place my bets, I would say that GW2 will represent the forefront in online gaming, which will need the latest technology in order to play it.

sorry jet but no way.

nobody in mass numbers could run it

you will be able to play it on 2 year old technology and it will not be dx 10 needed.

consider what would happen if tomorrow GW required todays highend hardware to run

dual core
minimum DUAL 7950 SLI video
2 gigs of dual channel ram

you would lose 95% of your customer base which is a real good way to kill it.

according to MAXIMUM PC magazine most of their hard core subscriber base have AVERAGE machines

lakatz · Mar 12, 2007, 05:24 PM // 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redfeather1975

I hope they use bump maps at least. I think it's overdue.

I started to say that would be nice, but then I remembered seeing some surface effects on the Ascalon warrior armor that reminded me of bump mapping. Are you sure they're not using it on at least a limited basis?

bamm bamm bamm · Mar 12, 2007, 06:57 PM // 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

consider what would happen if tomorrow GW required todays highend hardware to run

What if it didn't require it, but could use it if available? The current client scales accordingly (have you seen it with the lowest settings?), I don't see why the new one couldn't. Anyway, 2 years of development and who knows how long after release is a long time in gfx hardware development. I would hope they are most certainly aiming at your not-so-high-end-in-4-years spec. 2 gigs? Vista laughs at your 2 gigs!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

according to MAXIMUM PC magazine most of their hard core subscriber base have AVERAGE machines

Maximum PC magazine's subscribers are going to have to learn to set their games to AVERAGE graphical settings then.

I think normal mapping was introduced with Factions and expanded upon with Nightfall.

FoxBat · Mar 12, 2007, 07:32 PM // 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakatz

I started to say that would be nice, but then I remembered seeing some surface effects on the Ascalon warrior armor that reminded me of bump mapping. Are you sure they're not using it on at least a limited basis?

I think that's environment mapping (a static image that is mapped on based on the model's current angle to imitate reflections) It gives a shiny appearance to metallic objects, and is fairly cheap to implement. It doesn't make low-poly models appear smoother than they actually are, which is more what the shader-intensive bump mapping does.

Zorglubb · Mar 12, 2007, 07:34 PM // 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by frojack

Funny thing is all this new technology (or old in this case) doesn't necessarily make games look better. In fact many games look all the worse for over-reliance on such things. It really boils down to the skill of the artists and the art direction...

QFT. I haven't seen any case of bumpmap usage that has been able to bluff me so far, and there has been plenty of "flat" texturing that I found gorgeous. Parallax mapping is a different story, but it looks very weird at some angles.

I wish they won't go for hype tech, but rather stay with clean, gorgeous looking art like they have so far, ie. use tech only when artistically needed, not to check a box on a hype list.

lakatz · Mar 12, 2007, 08:11 PM // 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by frojack

Funny thing is all this new technology (or old in this case) doesn't necessarily make games look better. In fact many games look all the worse for over-reliance on such things. It really boils down to the skill of the artists and the art direction...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zorglubb

QFT. I haven't seen any case of bumpmap usage that has been able to bluff me so far, and there has been plenty of "flat" texturing that I found gorgeous...

Excellent points. When I first came into the game, I noticed that the textures were flat but exquisitely painted. I think the combination of the not-quite-real textures and very-real mocap animation gives the effect of a 'living painting.'

And when I read Redfeather's suggestion of bump maps, I thought it could be a good thing if it WAS done on a limited basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamm bamm bamm

I think normal mapping was introduced with Factions and expanded upon with Nightfall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxBat

I think that's environment mapping (a static image that is mapped on based on the model's current angle to imitate reflections) It gives a shiny appearance to metallic objects, and is fairly cheap to implement. It doesn't make low-poly models appear smoother than they actually are, which is more what the shader-intensive bump mapping does.

Ahhhhh. I'll be looking closely when I get home this evening. Thanks!

sindex · Mar 12, 2007, 08:45 PM // 20:45

You guys hopefully realize that they will also be getting rid of regular PCI-Express cards in the future; then come out with PCI-Express 2 cards. As well as DDR 3 memory sticks, and software is still having problems with the Dual Core crap. I already heard the implications will go in pretty dam soon. So upgrading now is a big “No, No.”

EDIT: The graphics are already pretty superior in GW (especially to you know who) without the extra flare of extra “eye lash movement.” There is just a small need in improvement if they want to keep the streaming servers.

Bryant Again · Mar 12, 2007, 09:07 PM // 21:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxBat

I think that's environment mapping (a static image that is mapped on based on the model's current angle to imitate reflections) It gives a shiny appearance to metallic objects, and is fairly cheap to implement. It doesn't make low-poly models appear smoother than they actually are, which is more what the shader-intensive bump mapping does.

Oh man...I dunno why the Env. mapping in this game bugs me so much. I guess it doesn't feel shiny enough to me. But then again, I played Neverwinter Nights for a few years, and they went totally overboard with it. But it looked awesome, and very very VERY shiny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sindex

EDIT: The graphics are already pretty superior in GW (especially to you know who) without the extra flare of extra “eye lash movement.” There is just a small need in improvement if they want to keep the streaming servers.

Only in terms of higher res andpoly count. Like I posted before, I really cannot stand that shadows don't affect characters. It's especially noticeable in the Kurzick areas, since it's a very dark forest. What I mean is that your character has the same brightness, be it under the trees' shadow or in the sun. Very unrealistic.

Also, I don't think there are any lighting effects - meaning, the flash from your fire spell doesn't light up your character.

("you know who" refers to the World of Warcraft, for those wondering (right?))

sindex · Mar 12, 2007, 09:35 PM // 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Only in terms of higher res andpoly count. Like I posted before, I really cannot stand that shadows don't affect characters. It's especially noticeable in the Kurzick areas, since it's a very dark forest. What I mean is that your character has the same brightness, be it under the trees' shadow or in the sun. Very unrealistic.

Also, I don't think there are any lighting effects - meaning, the flash from your fire spell doesn't light up your character.

("you know who" refers to the World of Warcraft, for those wondering (right?))

Yes I meant them. However you have to agree it’s not going to be Crysis type of graphics right? Usually when they arc-type graphics like that they worry about that more then the gameplay (generally which gets shorten from 8 hours to 4).

Bryant Again · Mar 13, 2007, 12:02 AM // 00:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by sindex

Yes I meant them. However you have to agree it’s not going to be Crysis type of graphics right? Usually when they arc-type graphics like that they worry about that more then the gameplay (generally which gets shorten from 8 hours to 4).

Never heard of Crysis, so I Google-imaged it, and BOOM! I will probably be able to clock a wonderous 3 FPS with that. Boo yah.

While I may seem nit picky about Guild Wars' graphics, it's...suprisingly optomized, and for that I'm thankful. I remember when I was playing it with a GeForce 4400x (very VERY old, now), it got in at around 40-45 fps. Strange, huh?

Blizzard gets a large around of success due to accessability: They make their games relatively low-end. When Starcraft was released, it was still using sprites. It seemed silly to do so since most games on the market were making their transition to higher-end graphics, but Blizzard did it to acknowledge the fact that not everyone can afford a perfect computer. They did the same with Diablo II years later. It only started to suck when Warcraft III was introduced and it required a more capable PC.

Still though, it'd be great for ANet to follow this, to be able to respect that some people just don't have up-to-date computers. I'm sure they will, because, well, look at Mike O'Brien's portfolio.

Side note: I dunno if you can justify World of Warcraft's graphics too much...If someone can afford 15$ a month, I'm sure they'd be able to save up for a decent card or upgrade.

I have too much spare time.

Archangel Xavier · Mar 13, 2007, 12:43 AM // 00:43

I think GW 2 will targey about the average computer spec range. They did so in the past and it worked out well. Seeing as how GW games are MMO, a large player base is ideal. With lower reqs, GW2 would attract more players and simply be more profitable than if they were to pull an Elder Scrolls on us. Like it was stated above, the "graphics" and level of realism are primarily dependent on the skill level of the 3d artists. As a 3d artist myself, this is what I've come to realize. It's obvious that the developers of Guild Wars are some of the best out there. In GW2 they will likely perform yet another amazing feat of providing stunning graphics with low system requirements.

kitsune23 · Mar 13, 2007, 01:48 AM // 01:48

Also consider that 2-3 years from now that $500 DX10 video card today could just as likely be an integrated chip on the mobo or a $30 discount special.

Eventually GW will have to make the jump to DX10, and it will probably have more to do with what OS'es Microsoft is still willing to support than anything else.

Clord · Mar 13, 2007, 06:11 PM // 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

Exactly - this is why I've been waiting to upgrade my computer.

If I had to place my bets, I would say that GW2 will represent the forefront in online gaming, which will need the latest technology in order to play it.

It is not ideal for sales to show screenshots then what need newest hardware what is then available. Many who buy PC games not got cutting edge computer and that is group what gonna buy mostly Guild Wars 2 when it comes.