Graphics in wow

90 Night Elf Priest
14535
The art in WoW is exceptionally good and beautiful. That's really what makes all other points about "dated graphics" more or less moot.
Also, the engine has the added benefit of being friendly to older hardware and offering high performance even in extreme 25man or 40man situations.

The only thing that players probably mean with this kind of criticism is that it doesn't look "photo realistic" (which is also by design) and doesn't have all the latest and greatest DirectX or OpenGL features in it. But do you want to play a good game or do you want to play an interactive graphics engine demo to show off what disproportionally expensive hardware can do?

Also, photo realism in games is overrated. In many cases it's even bad because it reduces visibility. Blizzard games for example would be terrible for competitive players if they had too realistic graphics. There's only so much you can add before it starts becoming visually cluttered.
WoW's art style (and in general Blizzard's art style) almost never has this type of problem, making it a joy to play even in situations where a lot of stuff is going on on the screen.

Also, there has been some research that showed that when virtual persons became too life-like in appearance, that viewers actually disliked it because it was never 100% close to reality, and so the viewers felt that it was weird instead of great looking. This means that the viewers actually prefered a graphics style with the purpose of NOT looking too realistic, because either you make it 100% realistic or not at all, if you just come ~90%+ close it will just look weird.

TLDR: WoW graphics are amazing, art is amazing, engine has high performance, photo realism is often bad and never makes a good game.
Edited by Lirazel on 18/12/2012 16:11 GMT
Reply Quote
90 Goblin Hunter
5735
The art in WoW is exceptionally good and beautiful. That's really what makes all other points about "dated graphics" more or less moot.
Also, the engine has the added benefit of being friendly to older hardware and offering high performance even in extreme 25man or 40man situations.

The only thing that players probably mean with this kind of criticism is that it doesn't look "photo realistic" (which is also by design) and doesn't have all the latest and greatest DirectX or OpenGL features in it. But do you want to play a good game or do you want to play an interactive graphics engine demo to show off what disproportionally expensive hardware can do?

Also, photo realism in games is overrated. In many cases it's even bad because it reduces visibility. Blizzard games for example would be terrible for competitive players if they had too realistic graphics. There's only so much you can add before it starts becoming visually cluttered.
WoW's art style (and in general Blizzard's art style) almost never has this type of problem, making it a joy to play even in situations where a lot of stuff is going on on the screen.

Also, there has been some research that showed that when virtual persons became too life-like in appearance, that viewers actually disliked it because it was never 100% close to reality, and so the viewers felt that it was weird instead of great looking. This means that the viewers actually prefered a graphics style with the purpose of NOT looking too realistic, because either you make it 100% realistic or not at all, if you just come ~90%+ close it will just look weird.

TLDR: WoW graphics are amazing, art is amazing, engine has high performance, photo realism is often bad and never makes a good game.


Either you run the game on a whole new level or you haven't tryed other games (guild wars 2)... The graphics in lower zones are disturblingy ugly, try go barrens and take a look or hellfire.
Edited by Fniz on 18/12/2012 16:13 GMT
Reply Quote
100 Undead Warlock
17230
Graphic is good - engine is bad - I still don't know why this game don't run on ultra 60fps on every machine 2 yrs old ...
Reply Quote
Community
Posted by Taepsilum
Also, bad graphics is very subjective, if you mean it in technical terms

I disagree with this.

Bad technical graphics just means fewer pixels, fewer polygons, fewer details, fewer decals, shorter draw distance, etc.


Maybe I didn't express myself very clearly. Here's the full quote:
18/12/2012 13:26Posted by Taepsilum
Also, bad graphics is very subjective, if you mean it in technical terms, everything will always end up having bad graphics, it’s only a matter of time. If you mean the art itself is bad, then that’s a valuable opinion, but opinions are highly subjective, and I have to say I strongly disagree.


What I meant to say is that in technical terms, it's simply a matter of time until any kind of graphics is considered bad/out dated. But graphics as in the “artwork” is something quite different; it has an intrinsic value that doesn’t degrade over time. That's why lots of people still play Mario, Puzzle Bobble, Pac-Man... and they still love the artwork and gameplay.
Lately it seems that quite a lot of games tend to be all about who has the biggest textures and latest shaders, that's an illusion that usually manages to hide the lack of innovation and real gameplay value.

Now, of course, graphics are also important and that's why we upgrade our engine from time to time, especially if it will make it more efficient and give players a better performance, but I'd still like to think that what players value the most is the gameplay, originality and innovation.
There is also an issue with changing something that is considered classic, and in my opinion, WoW verges on that. A lot of players would dislike major changes to the artwork, so when we upgrade our graphics engine, we need to be careful to make sure it doesn’t change the classic visuals that much.
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Hunter
12235
18/12/2012 16:44Posted by Taepsilum
Lately it seems that quite a lot of games tend to be all about who has the biggest textures and latest shaders, that's an illusion that usually manages to hide the lack of innovation and real gameplay value.

Haha, you mean Call of Duty ? :D
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Rogue
16875
Lately it seems that quite a lot of games tend to be all about who has the biggest textures and latest shaders, that's an illusion that usually manages to hide the lack of innovation and real gameplay value.

Haha, you mean Call of Duty ? :D

Burn!
I don't recall a game where they pushed for super awesome graphics and that the gameplay was stale. Innovation in graphics and gameplay go hand in hand usually. Care to give us an example taepsilum?

Anyway, while the art style is good and it's what carries the game graphics wise, the draw distance (very noticeable and annoying in the panda starting zone), model detail (any model from tbc and before), ground detail (dem square tiles, especially in northrend) and model animations (Very noticeable when npcs are talking and it's a clear sign they're just reskinning old models) are all very off-putting.
Edited by Daegranos on 18/12/2012 17:13 GMT
Reply Quote
90 Pandaren Monk
12135
Playing a game for graphics is like watching !@#$ for the story.
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Shaman
9055
18/12/2012 16:55Posted by Shandz
Lately it seems that quite a lot of games tend to be all about who has the biggest textures and latest shaders, that's an illusion that usually manages to hide the lack of innovation and real gameplay value.

Haha, you mean Call of Duty ? :D


haha, ye Call of Duty is one of the sh!ittiest games ever produced (with that i mean from black ops and forward) all about graphics and plain booring. the only thing in black ops who were fun was zombie, the rest was garbge.
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Hunter
12235
18/12/2012 17:16Posted by Risby
haha, ye Call of Duty is one of the sh!ittiest games ever produced (with that i mean from black ops and forward) all about graphics and plain booring. the only thing in black ops who were fun was zombie, the rest was garbge.

Well, the first three games were quite good. But after the fourth... Games that can be finished in less than 5 hours is sad :(
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Druid
7035
The graphics are what they are so that so many people are able to play it.
If you compare the system requirements of WoW to say GW2 they are much lower.

Personally for me the art style is one of the reasons i like the game, it still looks like a game, and isn't trying to be life-like and HD.
Reply Quote
100 Blood Elf Death Knight
18760
Okay so i bought GW2 and after a couple of days i realized i wasted my money simply becouse the graphics are too good for my pc to run in more then 10fps -.-
So no i prefer wow with current graphics as not everyone has the money to upgrade his pc every couple of months to keep it up to date.

18/12/2012 17:13Posted by Ashix
Playing a game for graphics is like watching !@#$ for the story.

I agree, hehe.
Edited by Leblance on 18/12/2012 18:02 GMT
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Priest
12990
The graphics are what they are so that so many people are able to play it.
If you compare the system requirements of WoW to say GW2 they are much lower.

Personally for me the art style is one of the reasons i like the game, it still looks like a game, and isn't trying to be life-like and HD.


I agree. If they went to high-end and whizzy, it would be unplayable for many systems, not everyone can afford a top of the range gamer laptop or pc. Plus I also like the artwork just as it is, and would rather this game kept me interested rather than just simply having my machine struggling to cope with superflashy HD type visuals.

Edit - dammit Leblance, you beat me to it :p
Edited by Twijfelkont on 18/12/2012 18:07 GMT
Reply Quote
100 Human Priest
12980
Do you know why League of Legends has bigger players base than any other DotA-style game? Because of cartoonish graphics, people like WoW for its "childish, cartoonish" graphics, and if WoW would be looking somewhat like Skyrim or Far Cry (insert any modern game) I would personally quit, because that would be unplayable and wouldn't be giving me that joy that I am having right now.

Also I can note another great game as Gothic, first and second part were using "old" graphics engine and game and its addons were really successful, as soon Gothic 3 was released it has lost popularity since that kind of graphics didn't fit the gameplay.

And one more thought: Assassin's Creed has a perfect balance of using somewhat "realistic" graphics and being stylized as a game, not trying to be close to real life as much as possible and that's one of the biggest factors of game being successful.
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Death Knight
12300
If people can't live with graphics in wow, they should go over to other games that has graphics that better suits them.

This complain is minor and could be solved easily by using the brain.
Edited by Izzyfurious on 18/12/2012 18:30 GMT
Reply Quote
90 Pandaren Hunter
13770
People too dumb to tell the difference between graphics, and style, shouldn't get to dictate this game. Luckily, they don't.

WoW has amazing graphics, just look at the light and mists and effects in Pandaria. Only models and textures are dated, but graphics in terms of effects and new models and zones = top notch AND unique compared to bland, realistic looking games. And, the Pandaria architecture with the golden ornaments, the light reflecting from the amazing structures...aw...I've never seen anything as pretty.

Also, great gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latest graphics. If this weren't the case, I'd be playing Tera or GW2. WoW has a unique feel to really PLAYING your toon, not just giving commands and seeing them on the screen.
Edited by Rorcanna on 18/12/2012 18:38 GMT
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Rogue
16875
18/12/2012 18:34Posted by Rorcanna
People too dumb to tell the difference between graphics, and style


18/12/2012 18:34Posted by Rorcanna
WoW has amazing graphics

Are you familiar with irony?
Reply Quote
90 Human Paladin
9225
18/12/2012 18:34Posted by Rorcanna
WoW has amazing graphics, just look at the light and mists and effects in Pandaria. Only models and textures are dated,


Oh yes i see what you mean with awesome graphics? when the trees don't even move, compare to "an example" "Tera" there they actually move with the leaf on. Update please.

Also wow is far away from best graphics then other games.
Sure it is nice and looking good.

Okay so i bought GW2 and after a couple of days i realized i wasted my money simply becouse the graphics are too good for my pc to run in more then 10fps -.-So no i prefer wow with current graphics as not everyone has the money to upgrade his pc every couple of months to keep it up to date.


If you have a so bad computer that you can't play gw2 i strongly suggest you buy urself a new one, or buy new parts to it and build it up. "Not that expensive"

18/12/2012 17:41Posted by Treefiddy
The graphics are what they are so that so many people are able to play it.


That's the great thing with wow. players with really bad computer can still play the game.

I had a terrible and i mean terrible computer before and i played on lowest graphics.
but i was able to play that's what i mean.

But now with the new computer i can use Ultra without problem but i'am still playing on Good graphics.

Reasons why?... well first becuase the computer runs the game even better with lower and can respawn fast as possible.
it also don't need to work so hard = twice hard in ultra. if i don't make the computer work so hard my processor can live for a longer time and i don't need to change it after 1 year.

18/12/2012 17:13Posted by Ashix
Playing a game for graphics is like watching !@#$ for the story.


i Do for them both but i don't live for the graphics.

18/12/2012 16:15Posted by Alexeht
Graphic is good - engine is bad - I still don't know why this game don't run on ultra 60fps on every machine 2 yrs old ...


When i bought this new computer.
Small Info about it.
2.80GHZ.
8GB Ram.
1Tera Memory.
NVIDIA graphic Card.

I played on Ultra for like 6 months then i noticed i had over 45% Cpu when playing wow.
Also i play on Windows 7 so yes a computer with windows 7 should always work hard.

But in start i was on 37% still 45% is not much. but i also use skype - Spotify - youtube many windows up at all times mostly of times. - Music - Socials - ETC it takes a bit memory also.

so i lowered to good. works really well still in ultra but i feel that i don't wanna play it out too much becuase the less it has to work the longer i'll have it instead of change every 6 month.

Now the computer is little bit older then 1 year. so i can agree that it might need a bit update.
Edited by Polished on 18/12/2012 19:30 GMT
Reply Quote
90 Pandaren Monk
10760
if they turned wow in to a guild wars 2/aion/skyrim/what ever game with more realistic graphics i would quit in a heartbeat, WoW is fine the way it is yeah the player models need updating but thats about it.

that is the beauty of wow, games come and go but good old wow stays basically the same!! dont change a thing blizz.
Reply Quote
90 Orc Death Knight
9150
What wow really needs is the support for more cpu and grafic cores, on that spot wow is so outdatet, i really like the look of wow, but thinking of what they could do with it if they had support for multigpu's and so makes me kinda weak in my knees ;)
Reply Quote
90 Human Rogue
5255
the graphics are not pretty it once was back in 04-05- but we are now sitting in 20-close to 13
and the game is not wow graps anymore. Mop might be a really big graps update but the graps are not realistic. and thats what many people want. i agree i would love a big big and really big graphics update and trees houses grass Etc. all of that
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]