Darkfall

Originally posted by Greek_Matt

Originally posted by Scaredgirl

Graphics or gameplay? Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

Some people say you can have both. They are wrong. What people consider "good graphics" nowadays is something like what Age of Conan has. The problem is that with todays technology it's just not going to happen. There are no 300vs300 epic battles in AoC, or not even 100vs100. You know why? Because the engine, servers and users computers can't handle it. There would be huge lag and crashes, it would be unplayable.

Seeing people here complain about DF graphics really pisses me off. I've seen many here say how they prefer gameplay over graphic but once we see a new video what is the first thing they complain about? Yes, graphics. This is so dumb.

I do agree with most people that Aventurine needs to work on the animations. I hate it when in the videos all the characters had this "bounce" in their running. Hope they can fix that.

If you want to see what happens when an MMO is all graphics and no gameplay, I suggest you go subscribe to Age of Conan. Sure the game looks pretty but is mostly a boring, instanced, single player game which has no soul. You really want that?

We don't know much about the gameplay in DF but if they can make it fluid and fun, graphics are acceptable. At least for me.

 

Just what we needed, yet another apologist thread for why it's ok that Darkfall looks so sub-par. The reason the graphics are ugly in this game has less to do with the "physical impossibility" of having both decent quality art and decent quality fluidity with large numbers of players, and more to do with the fact that Aventurine is a small dev team with no MMO experience working with the old, clunky code they wrote eight years ago on an indie game designed to appeal to UO fans who'd be happy with 8bit sprites and flashing lights so long as they're still allowed to loot, skin, rape and dance gleefully on the corpse of the guy they just ganked.

AoC took MMO graphics to the extreme, presumably in an attempt to make a game that would stand the test of time visually and thus continue to hold appeal for potential new players for some time to come. They failed for a variety of reasons, and misread the processing power of contemporary gaming machines (which they would have been trying to predict some years in advance when writing their code). But there's no reason why some satisfactory middle ground can't be found without having to look quite as B-grade as Darkfall currently seems to.

The real tragedy here is that most DF fans seem willing to sacrifice visual appeal so long as it guarantees that gameplay will be smooth with these mass 300+ vs 300+ (or whatever) battles everyone keeps talking about, and while that's not my personal preference it's certainly a legitimate choice to make. Yet while we've seen plenty of evidence of the graphics and animation being low-poly and dated, we have yet to see anything that might suggest that the promised mass battles will in fact be smooth, or even possible. On the contrary, the amount of skipping and glitching on display from that Italian vid of the beta with just one player fighting against one NPC mob in a completely empty zone presumably across an internal network is most certainly cause for concern.

By mentioning AoC and pushing the envelope your answer = FAIL. Who cares how good a game looks if its gameplay is weak? DF can have crap WoW graphics for all I care but if the gameplay is good then its gtg. 

Infact WoW is the perfect example of crap graphics, gameplay the masses like ( i think its MMORPG's for dumbies personally but thats me ). 

EQ2, Vanguard, AoC and soon to come Warhammer are the perfect examples of why focusing  on graphics instead of gameplay = FAIL. 

Originally posted by strykr619

Originally posted by Greek_Matt

Originally posted by Scaredgirl

Graphics or gameplay? Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

Some people say you can have both. They are wrong. What people consider "good graphics" nowadays is something like what Age of Conan has. The problem is that with todays technology it's just not going to happen. There are no 300vs300 epic battles in AoC, or not even 100vs100. You know why? Because the engine, servers and users computers can't handle it. There would be huge lag and crashes, it would be unplayable.

Seeing people here complain about DF graphics really pisses me off. I've seen many here say how they prefer gameplay over graphic but once we see a new video what is the first thing they complain about? Yes, graphics. This is so dumb.

I do agree with most people that Aventurine needs to work on the animations. I hate it when in the videos all the characters had this "bounce" in their running. Hope they can fix that.

If you want to see what happens when an MMO is all graphics and no gameplay, I suggest you go subscribe to Age of Conan. Sure the game looks pretty but is mostly a boring, instanced, single player game which has no soul. You really want that?

We don't know much about the gameplay in DF but if they can make it fluid and fun, graphics are acceptable. At least for me.

 

Just what we needed, yet another apologist thread for why it's ok that Darkfall looks so sub-par. The reason the graphics are ugly in this game has less to do with the "physical impossibility" of having both decent quality art and decent quality fluidity with large numbers of players, and more to do with the fact that Aventurine is a small dev team with no MMO experience working with the old, clunky code they wrote eight years ago on an indie game designed to appeal to UO fans who'd be happy with 8bit sprites and flashing lights so long as they're still allowed to loot, skin, rape and dance gleefully on the corpse of the guy they just ganked.

AoC took MMO graphics to the extreme, presumably in an attempt to make a game that would stand the test of time visually and thus continue to hold appeal for potential new players for some time to come. They failed for a variety of reasons, and misread the processing power of contemporary gaming machines (which they would have been trying to predict some years in advance when writing their code). But there's no reason why some satisfactory middle ground can't be found without having to look quite as B-grade as Darkfall currently seems to.

The real tragedy here is that most DF fans seem willing to sacrifice visual appeal so long as it guarantees that gameplay will be smooth with these mass 300+ vs 300+ (or whatever) battles everyone keeps talking about, and while that's not my personal preference it's certainly a legitimate choice to make. Yet while we've seen plenty of evidence of the graphics and animation being low-poly and dated, we have yet to see anything that might suggest that the promised mass battles will in fact be smooth, or even possible. On the contrary, the amount of skipping and glitching on display from that Italian vid of the beta with just one player fighting against one NPC mob in a completely empty zone presumably across an internal network is most certainly cause for concern.

 

By mentioning AoC and pushing the envelope your answer = FAIL. Who cares how good a game looks if its gameplay is weak? DF can have crap WoW graphics for all I care but if the gameplay is good then its gtg. 

Infact WoW is the perfect example of crap graphics, gameplay the masses like ( i think its MMORPG's for dumbies personally but thats me ). 

EQ2, Vanguard, AoC and soon to come Warhammer are the perfect examples of why focusing  on graphics instead of gameplay = FAIL. 

Heh heh... by demonstrating that you can't read, perhaps it is you who has "failed". Yes I 'mentioned' Conan, but while I do admire the visuals they managed to create I also agreed that ultimately their approach was a failure. I do however stand by my belief that it is possible to have a game with smooth gameplay and the ability to host mass battles while also being able to achieve better graphics and animation than Darkfall has shown so far. The two don't need to be mutually exclusive.

Take a look at modern FPS games like the recently released Call of Duty World At War - a game that can manage flawlessly smooth gameplay and incredible graphics and effects all while hosting up to 96 players in a single battle. Even a fraction of the visual quality and immersive environment that such games display would put DF's graphics to shame, while still allowing far greater numbers of players and all the extra processing required for mob AI's, costume variation and whatever other elements an MMO requires. It's generally accepted that the long production times for MMOs mean that they will be at least a few years behind the latest technology visually, but Darkfall is really testing the limits of players' tolerance for dated, clunky graphics.

And once again you quote that same old fanboi mantra: "DF can have crap WoW graphics for all I care but if the gameplay is good then its gtg". Problem is we still don't know whether the gameplay actually IS good or whether, as many suspect/believe/fear, the low quality graphics and animation will be matched with equally low quality smoothness and optimization leading to frustrating, laggy and clunky gameplay. Sadly Aventurine's woeful lack of mass testing is making this outcome seem more and more likely.

Originally posted by Greek_Matt

Originally posted by strykr619

 

By mentioning AoC and pushing the envelope your answer = FAIL. Who cares how good a game looks if its gameplay is weak? DF can have crap WoW graphics for all I care but if the gameplay is good then its gtg. 

Infact WoW is the perfect example of crap graphics, gameplay the masses like ( i think its MMORPG's for dumbies personally but thats me ). 

EQ2, Vanguard, AoC and soon to come Warhammer are the perfect examples of why focusing  on graphics instead of gameplay = FAIL. 

 

Heh heh... by demonstrating that you can't read, perhaps it is you who has "failed". Yes I 'mentioned' Conan, but while I do admire the visuals they managed to create I also agreed that ultimately their approach was a failure. I do however stand by my belief that it is possible to have a game with smooth gameplay and the ability to host mass battles while also being able to achieve better graphics and animation than Darkfall has shown so far. The two don't need to be mutually exclusive.

Take a look at modern FPS games like the recently released Call of Duty World At War - a game that can manage flawlessly smooth gameplay and incredible graphics and effects all while hosting up to 96 players in a single battle. Even a fraction of the visual quality and immersive environment that such games display would put DF's graphics to shame, while still allowing far greater numbers of players and all the extra processing required for mob AI's, costume variation and whatever other elements an MMO requires. It's generally accepted that the long production times for MMOs mean that they will be at least a few years behind the latest technology visually, but Darkfall is really testing the limits of players' tolerance for dated, clunky graphics.

And once again you quote that same old fanboi mantra: "DF can have crap WoW graphics for all I care but if the gameplay is good then its gtg". Problem is we still don't know whether the gameplay actually IS good or whether, as many suspect/believe/fear, the low quality graphics and animation will be matched with equally low quality smoothness and optimization leading to frustrating, laggy and clunky gameplay. Sadly Aventurine's woeful lack of mass testing is making this outcome seem more and more likely.

 

96 players in a seamless world , with weather forecasting and planetary movements or just multiplayer maps and instances?Can you build a city in CoD ? You know that in MMORPG chars data get saved on the server and not on the client ? You also know that the server handle any action and for any spell and skill used rather then the client for 50k - 100k people?  you know that even you not online the server has to manage your house placed somewhere  or the guard  you hired ? 

btw we are past to the point here that people who prefer better graphics over  gameplay are idiots

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

Originally posted by Greek_Matt

96 players in a seamless world , with weather forecasting and planetary movements or just multiplayer maps and instances?

btw we are past to the point here that people who prefer better graphics over  gameplay are idiots

It's lucky we have geniuses like you around to tell the rest of us who is an idiot and who is not based on your own personal preferences, otherwise we might mistakenly believe that it's ok to have your own opinion.

Sadly it seems you too are unable to read. Let me spell it out for you in small words with big letters so you won't embarrass yourself again:

I do not  prefer graphics over gameplay.

I think that we can and should expect to see both.

And I believe with Darkfall we will see neither, despite all of Tasos' empty promises and all your desperate hopes and dreams.

Originally posted by Scaredgirl

Graphics or gameplay? Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

Some people say you can have both. They are wrong. What people consider "good graphics" nowadays is something like what Age of Conan has. The problem is that with todays technology it's just not going to happen. There are no 300vs300 epic battles in AoC, or not even 100vs100. You know why? Because the engine, servers and users computers can't handle it. There would be huge lag and crashes, it would be unplayable.

Seeing people here complain about DF graphics really pisses me off. I've seen many here say how they prefer gameplay over graphic but once we see a new video what is the first thing they complain about? Yes, graphics. This is so dumb.

I do agree with most people that Aventurine needs to work on the animations. I hate it when in the videos all the characters had this "bounce" in their running. Hope they can fix that.

If you want to see what happens when an MMO is all graphics and no gameplay, I suggest you go subscribe to Age of Conan. Sure the game looks pretty but is mostly a boring, instanced, single player game which has no soul. You really want that?

We don't know much about the gameplay in DF but if they can make it fluid and fun, graphics are acceptable. At least for me.

1.  You are wrong.  No one says the graphics have to be ultra realistic -- just well done.  You can have great graphics and still have great gameplay.

2.  Not all games revolve around 100vs100 -- just the game you seem to be interested in, so it's not always an issue.

3.  If you are getting pissed off reading the forums, I'd suggest you stop reading.  You're taking this stuff way too seriously.

Originally posted by Greek_Matt

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

Originally posted by Greek_Matt

96 players in a seamless world , with weather forecasting and planetary movements or just multiplayer maps and instances?

btw we are past to the point here that people who prefer better graphics over  gameplay are idiots

 

It's lucky we have geniuses like you around to tell the rest of us who is an idiot and who is not based on your own personal preferences, otherwise we might mistakenly believe that it's ok to have your own opinion.

Sadly it seems you too are unable to read. Let me spell it out for you in small words with big letters so you won't embarrass yourself again:

I do not  prefer graphics over gameplay.

I think that we can and should expect to see both.

And I believe with Darkfall we will see neither, despite all of Tasos' empty promises and all your desperate hopes and dreams.

 

And then you mention CoD to compare to DF ...

DF has amazing graphics compared to the promised features ...They better then anyone expected who knows some bits about MMO...Some obviously have no idea what an MMORPG/FPS is about ..