Nintendo GFX

I'm sitting here looking at all the grassy plains like they look like Nintendo and what I really want is Playstation (World of Warcraft?).

Atari master race.

Are you from the future were sab is already in the game again mate?

You want grass looking like playstation / world of warcraft? What does that even mean?Now it would be nice if the grass was more like the grass in Breath of the Wild. And the weather effects.

the minute this game starts to look like fugly WoW I am out.

Well then spend some money on a better machine, install some sweetFX or whatever and off you go.

My best guess is the OP is trying to say they want more realistic graphics and is using an out-dated comparison to make the point. Back before the Xbox series came along and Nintendo stepped out of the console power/graphics war to do their own thing the major competition between consoles was Nintendo/Playstation and one of the arguments people used for or against each was the Playstation's more realistic, but often duller and grainier graphics vs. Nintendo's cleaner but more cartoony style.

GW2 is more subtle than say, Mario 64, but it still has a very distinctive artistic style. A lot of the time if you look closely at the textures on rocks, soil and things like that you can see actual brushstrokes. And even with the option to smooth edges turned off (can't remember what it's called) there's less hard lines than in a game which is aiming to be as realistic as possible. It's kind of like playing inside an animated 3D painting.

There's a lot of debate among players about what's best. Some people think all games should aim to look as realistic as possible (some even claim that if they obviously weren't trying to do that - like Minecraft - it's an admission that the developers are incapable of making a realistic game and settled for the best they could manage), some prefer cartoon graphics and some like something in the middle or a variety.

One advantage I think more artistic or cartoony graphics have, especially for an MMO, is they tend to age better. For an extreme example look at Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker. When OoT came out a lot of people praised it for the graphics (no, really, those massive blocky polygons were very impressive in 1998) and Wind Waker, which came out just 4 years later got...mixed reactions at best. 20 years on people say to ignore OoT's terrible graphics (even in the updated re-releases) and play it for the great gameplay, while no one makes any apologies for how Wind Waker looks because it looks almost as good (or bad) now as it did when it was released.

MMOs ideally have a very long life-time. GW2 is already coming up on 6 years old and if it had the most realistic graphics 2012 could offer it would be looking quite simple and out-dated by now. In another 6 years it would probably look a bit of a mess. Going for a less realistic style reduces the impact of that, making it less likely that the game will show it's age.

(And in case you're wondering why they couldn't just update the graphics every so often check out any of the existing topics on the subject where people who can explain it in more detail than I can have talked about how much of a massive project that would be.)

Some people still praise the look of Guild Wars, and it's 13 years old now. /shrug

About my only graphical complaint is the janky MIdriff line on my Norn female character when I wear armor that exposes it.

This isn’t the first post about gw2 graphics. Honestly compared to other mmos. Gw2 is pretty good on graphics. But I will talk about this topic on game graphics.

I can tell the people who complain about graphics are mostly new gamers. Because back in the day graphics were ugly. And u know what, we played the game till our system fried. And we didn’t care because, of how great the game was. Golden eye, Ugly game. Super smash 64 ugly game. Supermario 64 ugly game to this day. But guess what? Till this day other games can barely exceed these titles. New supersmash is better however nothing beats the creator of all super smash.

Twisted metal 3 ps1, ugly game still I haven’t seen a great game that can exceed the gameplay.

As much as we love graphics, it’s always been about the game. And always will be. I’m sorry but games that look better really don’t mean a thing. Forza 3 gorgeous game. But when I play it I always thing of, why is there no actually cash currency then credits? Why are there no police?

As much as people say gw2 is outdated. It’s really not as outdated as people think. The game still is beautiful if you have good specs. But even if they have ugly effects it won’t make me or u leave the game for it. Because gameplay is what keeps you playing.

We should treat graphics as the cherry on top. Not the cake. Gameplay is the cake and it should always be tasty. But having the cherry is what makes you have more delight then the cake suppose to give you, but the cherry you do not need for cake. The cake is already great without it.

@blambidy.3216 said:We should treat graphics as the cherry on top. Not the cake. Gameplay is the cake and it should always be tasty. But having the cherry is what makes you have more delight then the cake suppose to give you, but the cherry you do not need for cake. The cake is already great without it.

So if GW2 would have a text based DOS game it would have been as good as now?

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@blambidy.3216 said:We should treat graphics as the cherry on top. Not the cake. Gameplay is the cake and it should always be tasty. But having the cherry is what makes you have more delight then the cake suppose to give you, but the cherry you do not need for cake. The cake is already great without it.

Except a text-based DOS game couldn’t have the same gameplay as GW2 for obvious reasons.

You clearly didn’t get his/her point.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@blambidy.3216 said:We should treat graphics as the cherry on top. Not the cake. Gameplay is the cake and it should always be tasty. But having the cherry is what makes you have more delight then the cake suppose to give you, but the cherry you do not need for cake. The cake is already great without it.

I don’t think text based could handle an mmo. However if it could happen. I really don’t care. I’d still buy the game. I still play old games so graphics wise, it’s not a thing for me. I might even enjoy it more cause I always laugh at the old graphics. But me not playing the game because of graphics won’t be the reason.

If however these guys created the game in, if they keep the same premise of the game, I will surely buy it. As much as people complain about gw2 graphics, graphics is the least thing arenanet needs to worry about.

It’s the new gamer generation that really complains about the graphics. If new gamers started out with Pac-Man, Pokémon red in game boy. Atari. Mega man 1-10, mega man x. Etc. then they would know it’s about the game. However I won’t say all games are great that are ugly.

There’s beautiful great games, But you can’t have a beautiful game that sucks Vs an ugly game that is great. People need to know the difference.

graphic wise, this game is like one of the "new" idea games that just doesn't work, realism in a cartoon is still a cartoon.

@"sorudo.9054" said:graphic wise, this game is like one of the "new" idea games that just doesn't work, realism in a cartoon is still a cartoon.What does that even mean?

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"sorudo.9054" said:graphic wise, this game is like one of the "new" idea games that just doesn't work, realism in a cartoon is still a cartoon.What does that even

mean

?

put a character of the new FF games in an old FF game, no matter what you try it's still gonna be ugly.GW2 is the same, put a really good looking character in an outdated game and it's just ugly. (GW2 being the outdated game)

@blambidy.3216 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@blambidy.3216 said:We should treat graphics as the cherry on top. Not the cake. Gameplay is the cake and it should always be tasty. But having the cherry is what makes you have more delight then the cake suppose to give you, but the cherry you do not need for cake. The cake is already great without it.

MUDs were the first mmos. But yeah Gameplay > Everything else.I'm still waiting for a new UO.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@blambidy.3216 said:We should treat graphics as the cherry on top. Not the cake. Gameplay is the cake and it should always be tasty. But having the cherry is what makes you have more delight then the cake suppose to give you, but the cherry you do not need for cake. The cake is already great without it.

If there were near hundreds of story options to discover, yes it would be just as compelling as now.

EDIT: to clarify my response, the way I see topics like this, it's always a game of give-and-take. Sacrifices upon sacrifices to attain something that will grab your audience and hold them there. I do feel that graphics are getting better with every generation, but many still sacrifice story telling, player driven narrative and character development for graphics. Even when games come with full package and have nice graphics and story telling, the price tends to be years and years of development, higher prices, shorter games or corners cut in other places. There's no getting around this fact. Asking if a player would prefer some graphics to no graphics only makes sense if they are getting something compelling in exchange.

What's this? Style and personality in the graphics of my game? Is this a kid's game? I'll only take bleak colors and bland environments please.