Problem is, most of the graphical improvements are hitting the limits of the hardware used to run process the graphics, not the limits of the algorithms. And game developers aren't hardware designers, so they can't help push the graphics cards. For example, lets take anti-aliasing. Basically it works by calculating the colour of multiple points within the pixel and averaging them out, instead of just taking the colour of a single point. Higher levels of anti-aliasing sample more points per pixel, thus needing more powerful hardware, but use very similar algorithms to do it. It might of just been screenshots and videos I saw of AoC, but its graphics didn't look like much to talk about. I remember plenty screens showing large areas of land with very few things on it. And using AoC is not a good example here as it looks like Funcom spent too much time working on the graphics, so they didn't have enough time to fix the things people were complaining about (bugs and gameplay). Sure, those might be fixed now. But given that more than 60% of the AoC servers are being shut down, it's too late. Wouldn't you rather a developer who focused on compelling gameplay ? Also, where exactly did AoC push the boundaries of graphics technology ? I'm talking about things that require them to come up with new rendering algorithms, or major tweaks to existing ones. Why ? Satisfied customers are more likely to spend money than dissatisfied ones. Yes, sometimes focusing on a niche market that the giants don't cover will be more profitable than taking on the giant in its own right. For example, Eve Online has always had a niche position within the MMO market. CCP (its developers) have never intended for it to appeal to everyone. Sure, it will never be as popular as other mainstream MMOs, even if we ignore WoW. But it has always been growing since release. But they won't have equal gameplay unless the one with better graphics also has a larger budget, as any money spent to improve graphics is money that has been drawn away from improving gameplay. I'd also go for the better graphics if the gameplay was the same. However that choice is very rare. Instead I have to chose between games where the developers had to make a tradeoff between better graphics and better gameplay.
Ah yes, bloom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_(shader_effect) Making things look 'better' by simulating the ways in which a camera has problems. Even when we are meant to be looking out of the eyes of the character we are using.
Even worse is loudness war in songs, where they digitally turn up the volume of the song as a default to make it sound better... because loud == better sounding apparently.
Except that I disagree with you here as the few screenshots I have seen of AoC looked pretty bland. Though I will admit that I may of only seen a few bad ones. Besides, how many of the urban legends over at snopes are 'common knowledge' despite being wrong ?
Point conceded. AoC does look better than Guild Wars. Though why were so many of those screens taken in darkness, or with the camera looking at the side of an object that was in shadow ?
perhaps going back to the previous point of the game being too high end? for the most part I kept my graphics on low for supreme victory in pvp encounters...leave nothing to chance, even though i could run on high with no problems.
So your telling me that the reason that a lot of the the official screenshots are taken with large parts in darkenss (thus hiding detail) is because the machines they were taken on were insufficient ? If yes, your telling me that Funcom didn't have machines capable of running a game that they were developing.
I didnt realise you were talking about funcom pics, for that I have no idea...nor do I care for that matter. xD for regular screens, I offered an idea as to what may have been the case.
So when I made a post in reply to you telling me to look at the official screens, you somehow assume I'm talking about something other than the screens you linked me to ? And when are you planning to reply to post 63 ?
i have to tell you my fried most of those isues have been addressed and the game run much much better,i used to have my vicion range at 1/3 and grafics with a shadows and some effects off. but right now i can pvp in keshata where there are at least other 30 people fighting with shadows on, visual range at full, and other stuff, that makes the game look realy good! so i think you can enjoy the game with all its glory! but AoC was not only about the grafics it was also about a more in hands combat where skills shows! but yeah games and even MMO need push the grafics, becuase i think in 2 more years and i hope AoC still around any mashine will be able run it!
I've played both and found this to be true for me. And I do have a system that was capable of playing both games with the graphics quality cranked all the way up with no loss of performance. The AoC graphics may have been "more detailed" and therefore "more realistic" but they did not "look better" to me. The game looked like regurgitated dogshit, and unfortunately very detailed regurgitated dogshit. Also, the women were positively beastly compared to my GW babes, not matter how much I tweaked their figures. I'll take the aesthetics of GW over AoC every day, regardless of how less detailed or sharp the graphics appear.