11 replies to this topic

[starstutter]

I am just wondering. It's something that's been bothering me for a while now. Why exactly is it that every MMO's graphics *by law* have to look mind blowingly outdated. WoW, LOTRO, ect.

Is it a budget issue, lack of necessity, processing issue? I mean, graphics and networking are handled on two seperate operations, so unless you're using things like complex shadow volumes, I wouldn't think they would overlap much.

EDIT: Really, now that I think about it, shadow volumes are becoming more and more GPU based, so I guess it's not a real good excuse anymore...



EDIT: Just to make it clear, I'm a full supporter of the idea that graphics do not make games good. Gameplay does. The reason this confuses me so much is that WoW is much based around exploration. Encouragment to explore and bland visuals make for a contradictory mix. I also find it strange that single people on this very site can make graphics engines, yet somehow a multi-billion dollar corperation doesn't want to put fourth the effort to make the graphics past the 1999 mark.

[Sol_HSA]

Let's see..

a) Make graphics engine require bleeding edge technologies
vs
b) Make graphics engine use mainstream technologies.

Cost:
a) Research, build new tools, lots of art resources
b) Technologies known, tools mature, artists already know how to use them

Audience:
a) Hardcore gamers
b) Pretty much everybody

Do the math, will you?

[starstutter]

I understand all that to a point. It's fine that they want to make it available for everybody, but that doesn't mean that your graphics engine has to be from 1999. Using technology from 2005 could be wipped up rather easity by professionals and it could have options that didn't require PS 2 or 3.

I never said they needed to be bleeding edge, but I mean come on, they really don't need to look that effortless. It just seems strange that with the hundreds of millions put into it, it wouldn't cost that much more for a halfway decent graphics engine. Tourqe cost $200, still looks kind of bad, but has triple the graphics that WoW does.

It just really doesn't makes sense to me.

[fireside]

I've never played the game, but I think part of it might be interchangeability. If you want to generate all kinds of different characters with all kinds of different scenes and give the player choices, then the graphics need to be simplified and be a little more abstract. There could also be a problem with sending information across a network. The game is much more complex than something as simple as a shooter, so I think you have to go about it in a different way. When you look at the numbers of people playing, you can see that having lots of choices wins out over detailed graphics. Generally, detailed graphics will give the player about 2 minutes of entertainment value. You need them the most in games that are low level and visceral like shooters and racing games where you've basically shut off your brain and are using reactions and senses.

[starstutter]

fireside said:

When you look at the numbers of people playing, you can see that having lots of choices wins out over detailed graphics. Generally, detailed graphics will give the player about 2 minutes of entertainment value.

True, but maybe what you were getting at is less of a technology issue and more of an art issue? It is true that making better graphics would take more time art wise (especially when you're talking about constant generation of new content), but it would seem odd that with the long-passed invention of the "2 second normal and height map generator" that this would be a big road block. Polygon wise, completley understandable, texture wise... ehhh.. that's a bit shaky if you ask me.

The "2 minutes of entertainment", I agree with partly. I think they can provide 2 minutes here and there every little while. I think graphics can be on a few different levels.

- Crysis - genuinley beautiul visuals that allow for deep and prolonged exporation that actually may provide *most* of the entertainment value. Honestly, most people who played Crysis on low graphics said it wasn't very good, and the ones on high said it looked so damn nice the gameplay didn't bother them.

- medium - ok, but nothing special. They're not the apex of realism, but everything is clear and comprehensible. Sometimes even, the graphics can provide a few minutes of appreciation here and there. At this point, the gameplay has to be good to keep the players interest, and enough to get through the visual bias of the general public.

- MMO - your eyes litterally have to adjust to get used to it. It's hard to tell what things are and lobsided buildings and trees can get confusing. At times it's hard to navigate because things look the same. It gets hard to tell creatures apart from eachother because of the severe lack of detail. In this case, the graphics start to affect the actual gameplay.


Also, unless they've found a way to do networking on the GPU (which I'm not saying is impossible, I've just never heard of it) I can't imagine why the number of players on one server would effect the graphics to that extent. Logically speaking, it would just mean you have to avoid graphic methods that use the CPU a lot. In that respect, particle systems, ray tracing and shadow volumes could provide serious problems.

[particlesoffire]

Like people have said, its all about the numbers. MMOs need a lot of people paying money into the game every month in order to make them financially viable. Also most MMOs seem to have a longer lifespan than your average game, so rather than comparing their graphics to current games, you should probably look at the level of graphics that were gracing our PCs and consoles when they were being developed.

That said the screens and videos of newer MMOs are starting to improve, age of conan, champions online etc. Then again if they last 3+ years, they're going to look pretty ugly eventually.

[STLDude]

One important point to keep in mind, that single player games will know what is rendered on the screen and can be very clever of optimizations, etc, where in MMO, you do not have that luxury. Players can congregate in one area, bringing your computers to it's knees. Yes you can provide some kind of LOD sytem, but that will only take you so far and and will require considerable resources and time to implement correctly. And as most of the other answers, it's about accessibility for people.

Do you really think that if WOW come out with stringent graphics requirements as EQ2, they would have around 10 million subscribers now?

[fireside]

Quote

- Crysis - genuinley beautiul visuals that allow for deep and prolonged exporation that actually may provide *most* of the entertainment value. Honestly, most people who played Crysis on low graphics said it wasn't very good, and the ones on high said it looked so damn nice the gameplay didn't bother them.

You can get by with that for one game. After that it's "been there done that" and everyone will say the game wasn't very good like the people that played it in low res, unless there was actually some game there. Eventually we really won't be able to push the bar any further visually, at least so it would make a difference to the average person. Really, I think it's getting pretty close, and then they won't be able to do that at all. It's write a real game or die. In a little while they'll have automatic scenery generators and I guarantee you, you will be so sick of that look you will want to puke.

[starstutter]

fireside said:

You can get by with that for one game. After that it's "been there done that" and everyone will say the game wasn't very good like the people that played it in low res, unless there was actually some game there.

Yeah, I wasn't saying that bad graphics justified having a bad game. I was just making a counter point that the graphics provided only "2 minutes of entertainment". Which I really don't belive is true.

Graphics cannot make up for gameplay, nor provide any themselves. What they can do is offer better immersion, nice visuals and a clear view that can enhance the experience. They can't make a game by themselves, but they can help make it a whole lot more entertaining.

[onyxthedog]

Guild Wars is an MMORPG and it does not have bad graphics. It has pretty good 3D graphics, but I do notice that at times the frame rate drops and stays about 9-11 fps, but it really doesn't make a difference because you don't expect perfect 3D. On a good moment it is about 14-18 and on anverage 12-14. But that is really pretty good.

[STLDude]

Guild Wars in not really MMO in a true sense. It's instanced, thus giving designers control of how many players to allow within the group.

[dave_]

Why do people make sweeping generalizations?

There are plenty of good looking MMOs. You've clearly only got as far as LoTR and WoW.

And Guild Wars is an MMO in the true sense. Its not a continuous virtual world, but then neither is WoW.