Jump to content

? for ppl actually playing the game.


badwin

Recommended Posts

It's a pretty game, but no Skyrim. :)

 

However, that is the price for a MMO.

 

 

Aye! I am not the gaming hardware expert, but I believe console games in general have technological advantages that allow better graphics than a PC, no?

 

I guess in my mind I've always separated MMO graphics from console graphics, so from an MMO mindset, I really enjoy the screenshots I've seen so far. Can't wait to see for myself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pretty game, but no Skyrim. :)

 

However, that is the price for a MMO.

 

I wouldn't exactly call Skyrim pretty looking, It could of looked much better.

 

Aye! I am not the gaming hardware expert, but I believe console games in general have technological advantages that allow better graphics than a PC, no?

 

I guess in my mind I've always separated MMO graphics from console graphics, so from an MMO mindset, I really enjoy the screenshots I've seen so far. Can't wait to see for myself!

 

Hell no. Consoles are far inferior to PC hardware right now. The game doesn't look amazing because they want as many people playing it as possible so the graphics are weak in orer to maximize profits. They also have to keep in mind that there could be parts where there is 100+ people in spots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most important is that it gives you the 'Star Wars' feeling and I belive Bioware did a terrific job with that, looks fantastic!

 

In all honesty if you compare the animations and everything to other games It's not so bad. I find it the best looking mmo so far. The graphics are not realistic like AoC and other games but I still findit better looking for an mmo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell the textures are similar to the beta weekends, however they have improved the lighting and shadows, so everything looks a bit better (or maybe that's simply because the high shadows are actually high now)

 

I've never been and still am not a fan of the stylized realism approach, however I have to admit that overall this game looks and runs great.

Would like to have AA support in the game itself though.

Edited by DaniWes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't exactly call Skyrim pretty looking, It could of looked much better.

 

 

 

Hell no. Consoles are far inferior to PC hardware right now. The game doesn't look amazing because they want as many people playing it as possible so the graphics are weak in orer to maximize profits. They also have to keep in mind that there could be parts where there is 100+ people in spots.

 

Isn't there the issue, though, that with a console you aren't also having to see things that have to be transmitted via internet (and if they are being transmitted via ethernet like in online shooters, the graphics aren't as good as cutscenes on solo-player console games). Also, that the information is being read off of a disc rather than being loaded onto your computer as you move throughout the environment.

 

Again, not an expert, just seems intuitively that these factors would cater to consoles having an easier time producing better graphics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really hope in-game AA support gets patched in soon. That's just something PC gamers have come to expect. It's not even a new thing for Bioware's games. It makes a big difference. Seems weird that we are forced to tweak files out of game to enable it.

 

You can force it through CCC and Nvidias control panel. It's very easy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there the issue, though, that with a console you aren't also having to see things that have to be transmitted via internet (and if they are being transmitted via ethernet like in online shooters, the graphics aren't as good as cutscenes on solo-player console games). Also, that the information is being read off of a disc rather than being loaded onto your computer as you move throughout the environment.

 

Again, not an expert, just seems intuitively that these factors would cater to consoles having an easier time producing better graphics.

 

Graphics of PC vs Console, PC always wins (assuming you have a decent, modern rig and not something that's 8 years old. I have a 360 and PS3, and love both systems. My PC is a Crossfire set-up though, so if I buy a game that's graphic intensive (IE Skyrim) I get it on the PC because it looks just that much better...and I'm a fan of the eye candy the devs work so hard on.

 

The reason for TOR's less then amazing graphics (I think it's a great looking game though) is that it's an MMO. Every MMO produced always has graphics below the curve, I'd believe it's to cater to the masses that have older rigs...though that's just my guess, you'd have to ask a dev to find out why i suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye! I am not the gaming hardware expert, but I believe console games in general have technological advantages that allow better graphics than a PC, no?

 

I guess in my mind I've always separated MMO graphics from console graphics, so from an MMO mindset, I really enjoy the screenshots I've seen so far. Can't wait to see for myself!

 

Really? Is this for real? LOL

 

You should see a DX11 map of BF3 on my computer, then you'll never fire up your console, ever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye! I am not the gaming hardware expert, but I believe console games in general have technological advantages that allow better graphics than a PC, no?

 

I guess in my mind I've always separated MMO graphics from console graphics, so from an MMO mindset, I really enjoy the screenshots I've seen so far. Can't wait to see for myself!

 

That's quite oposite mate. Just graphic card alone today is 10x greater than anything console has to offer. We have much more RAM, better processors etc.

Only at launch consoles were supperior compare to common PC but they cost more than common PC and price was still lower that it should be (PS3 were sold below cost of production because Sony [and MS too] take %% from every game sold).

 

Graphic didn't improve too mutch but still it's better than in beta I think. I would need to play Jedi again to see locations so I can make sure. Still for 2011 graphic is ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye! I am not the gaming hardware expert, but I believe console games in general have technological advantages that allow better graphics than a PC, no?

 

Accualy no mate, even if consoles have better graphics than the regular destop/laptop arround, the fact is, if you are willing to pay 2k+ por a good desktop you will see that they are far ahead from any console arround, just to give you one idea, just my graphic card costed me arround 500€ when i bought it... and that, is at least the price of the most expensive console in the market...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, not an expert, just seems intuitively that these factors would cater to consoles having an easier time producing better graphics.

 

No, it's not like that.

 

Consoles at the time of release (both: PS3, Xbox360 or even Wii) were WORSE than PCs back in the day.

Now we are few years ahead and PCs jumped even further ahead - if you look at the computing power of graphics systems a PC bought last year is roughly 10 times better than Console.

 

Problem is that: On consoles there's only one set of hardware and drivers. On a PC there's endless amount of combinations. You can hardly push PC to a maximum cause that would essentially limit you to running game only on very specific sets of hardware (like Intel i7 CPU with DX11 nVidia graphics card - tech demos usually run on setups like that). So you'll never see how would game look with 10 times the console processing power. Usually it's closer to 3-4 times.

 

But even than there's one big factor to consider - developers treat PC market like a crap. Those who don't get rewarded with money, but still major companies like EA or Ubisoft still live in a world where number of games sold on consoles and profits generated by them is much higher than it's on a PC. Therefore very very very few games actually push PCs to the maximum and very very few games are optimality well enough to run properly on a PC. Death of Crysis 2 or Arkham City can be blamed for that even though eventually these games got improved to a reasonable level.

 

And there's one more factor: Console games run on TVs in 1280x720 without anti-aliasing capped to 30 FPS. Constant resolution and FPS count allows you to perform some.... let's call it: tricks, that make game look better than it actually do if you'd start making print-screens and compare them with PCs. Also having game run on a TV with surround sound gives much better end-user impression than playing on 19'' computer screen with headset ;) Even if you can plug-in PC to a TV and get real 1080p with AA, 7.1 sound and far more details on the screen (higher res textures, higher polygon models, tessellation, and so on).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...