Game: What game are you currently playing??

WoW still has the better "PvP" (Arena 2on2 3on3 5on5), but War-online has the best RvR out there.

so ya, it's a different audience... War will find players from DaoC and other PvP MMO's
and WoW will always be for people who like to raid with and do some PvP from time to time.

I played the beta of Warhammer online... but didn't like it much, the graphics look even worse than in WoW and I don't want to stop raiding... Warhammer has PvE too, but it is really bad compared to what WoW offers.

I wish WoW would have some RvR too though :(
well, maybe with WotLK which comes out in November. I read that they took some good things from RvR in Warhammer and copied it ^^


btw: I installed Homeworld, Homeworld Cataclysm, Homeworld 2.... man, I want them to make Homewolrd 3!
It's simply the best Space-RTS out here... I actually thought that I would be shocked by the old graphics from Homeworld... but it was better than I expected

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrayZ33

I played the beta of Warhammer online... but didn't like it much, the graphics look even worse than in WoW and I don't want to stop raiding... Warhammer has PvE too, but it is really bad compared to what WoW offers.

---

While I'm not able to say that WoW's PvE is better or not (haven't played it in a long time), Warhammer does not make you kill 300 of something that drops some item at 1%. It's almost always a kill count or locate items while hitting a kill count. Though I suppose you were talking more about endgame PvE.

If you're basing graphics off anything other than the open beta (since you didn't specify) I'm told the game has changed a lot since the early parts of the closed beta. They locked down the graphics so the closed beta members could look for bugs like they were supposed to. Other than a little cartoony shine that Blizzard uses in all its games to make them look better (yes even the character models from Diablo 2) the graphics are quite comporable. Just like Blizzard does for WoW and the rest of their titles, Mythic designed it to run on the most systems.

Warhammer does have city sieges, which are like raids, but again, those are still RvR.

As we're both saying, different audiences.

(...and for the record, City of Heroes blew WoW away on graphics even though it came out before it)

Uh, even in beta, Warhammer's graphics blew WoW's graphics away. The settings were not even optimized or fully fuctional yet and still looked way better. AA does almost nothing for WoW, but it's easily noticeable in WAR. The real difference is in art direction, but I do like both. WoW more vibrant, and WAR more gritty and dark.

That said, I've been playing WoW since release. I've gotten Glad in seasons 2 and 3, and have done sunwell up to Felmyst. So I'm pretty much burned on BC. I'm prob gonna buy WAR tomorrow when I have the chance. Most likely Order on Dark Crag, and Destruction on Badlands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animus

Uh, even in beta, Warhammer's graphics blew WoW's graphics away. The settings were not even optimized or fully fuctional yet and still looked way better. AA does almost nothing for WoW, but it's easily noticeable in WAR. The real difference is in art direction, but I do like both. WoW more vibrant, and WAR more gritty and dark.

That said, I've been playing WoW since release. I've gotten Glad in seasons 2 and 3, and have done sunwell up to Felmyst. So I'm pretty much burned on BC. I'm prob gonna buy WAR tomorrow when I have the chance. Most likely Order on Dark Crag, and Destruction on Badlands.

---

not at all... the shadows and landscapes in Wotlk and in general, the instances in BC/WoW-Classic > Warhammer...

the only thing which is better graphic wise in Warhammer are the characters. however WoW is alrdy nearly 5 years old.

and with wotlk even that changes most likely because of the new shadows and sets with more textures/polygons

Quote:

---

If you're basing graphics off anything other than the open beta (since you didn't specify) I'm told the game has changed a lot since the early parts of the closed beta

---

was playing the beta 3 weeks ago

Quote:

---

While I'm not able to say that WoW's PvE is better or not (haven't played it in a long time), Warhammer does not make you kill 300 of something that drops some item at 1%. It's almost always a kill count or locate items while hitting a kill count

---

trust me when I tell you that quests in WoW are the best in the MMO-genre so far..
and even though the "please kill 20 rabbits and bring me the ears from the bigger ones"-quests exist, there are a lot of quests which are alot greater than that.
in Wotlk you will see a lot of scripted and instanced events.. (for example "The Battle for the Undercity".. you are raiding Undercity there with a few NPCs... namely Thrall and Sylvana's and a few others, pretty cool stuff)

and the "kill 20 rabbits" quests do also exist in Warhammer-online... thats just normal
it's just that they have a greater effect, because of the RvR content and victory points
I also played the Wotlk beta and the new quests and instances looked extremely awesome.

I don't know why so many people are saying that the Warhammer graphics are great... I expected a lot more than that :/


watch (might contain spoilers) this here and press on "watch in high quality and tell me again that warhammer has "so much better graphics

especially the part from 2:15 - end

here is the first part btw for those who are interested

and that were only a few zones
another good video from the same guy can be found here
http://www.warcraftmovies.com/stream...ream=Filefront

the only difference is that warhammer has less colorfull graphics... but that doesn't make the graphics better.. its more "realistic" but thats why it looks less impressive imho... however, for some reason they don't go with that "realistic look" till the end... there are zones who totally remind me of WoW and other zones which remind me of AoC.. So saying that Warhammer is using a more "realistic design" is actually wrong, but I think it's ok when we judge the overall-design.


but exactly that is what makes the graphic look boring imho...
I think especially the "warcraftmovies" link shows what Blizzard "comic-graphics" can do to improve the atmosphere.. It's a fantasy game... I 'want' to see colours which I don't see in real life... I like a glowing-dark blue, or silver-white trees glowing in the night while you and your party is questing in that forest... and If I have enough of all that, I can go back to the Borelean Tundra and enjoy a dark scenery with polution caused by orcs and goblins who live in their huge bulwark

Warhammer will never be able to show such a variety, simply because the warhammer universe doesn't allow it :/

You're confusing the amount of bright colors with actual texture quality, pixels per model, specular lighting, AA use, shaders, the use of your card's TMU's, and among many other things.

I hope you realize that the point of graphics in games is to be as close to reality as possible. That's the strive and goal. This is a text book definition. Granted the draw of WoW is it's art style and direction, which I do enjoy. But saying in terms of straight up graphics, WoW is obviously inferior. Sure you might prefer it's art style over WAR's, but that is a different story.

Just take a gander here: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=8VFgnl42eKs

And an fyi, the open beta didn't come with all the graphical optimizations. They didn't even include a GPU slider until the 2nd to last day of Open Beta.

Just a little tidbit, I could run WoW maxed settings on a AMD 3000+ 1.8 ghz, 2 GB DDR2 RAM, GeForce 7600 GS and run smooth in raids; SSC, TK, BT, SWP.

Using the same system, Tier 1 Scenario's I would chop down to 15 fps on bare minimum settings. But I'll admit part of that is that they've got optimization and kinks to work out, since 3rd or 4th day of the Open Beta, they released a patch that improved my FPS by maybe 3-5 during RvR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animus

I hope you realize that the point of graphics in games is to be as close to reality as possible.

---

no, the point of graphics in games is to create atmosphere, but I know what you mean.


but that aside

Quote:

---

Just a little tidbit, I could run WoW maxed settings on a AMD 3000+ 1.8 ghz, 2 GB DDR2 RAM, GeForce 7600 GS and run smooth in raids; SSC, TK, BT, SWP.
.

---

hell, I can't believe what 2GB of DDR2 can do... I'm currently using 1gb of DDR-SDRAM and If I max out all the details in WoW I've got like 10 FPS in raids ^^
and that even though I#ve got a AMD 2ghz and 7900GT

I should upgrade that :/


btw - Ontopic:

I finished Homeworld (only 1) and got Prince of Persia (this sand thingy + all addons[?]) from a friend... I thought that game is boring.... oh man, I was totally wrong, it's funny to let your character die, rewind... and let him die again

You'd get a kick out of XBLA and PSN (I think) game, Braid then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrayZ33

not at all... the shadows and landscapes in Wotlk and in general, the instances in BC/WoW-Classic > Warhammer...

---

Quote:

---

but exactly that is what makes the graphic look boring imho...
I think especially the "warcraftmovies" link shows what Blizzard "comic-graphics" can do to improve the atmosphere.. It's a fantasy game... I 'want' to see colours which I don't see in real life... I like a glowing-dark blue, or silver-white trees glowing in the night while you and your party is questing in that forest... and If I have enough of all that, I can go back to the Borelean Tundra and enjoy a dark scenery with polution caused by orcs and goblins who live in their huge bulwark

Warhammer will never be able to show such a variety, simply because the warhammer universe doesn't allow it

---

These statements alone show how little of Warhammer you obviously played. You might have played just one of the factions, maybe two.
You want shining towers, trashed citadels, poisoned purple lands opposing verdant hills, lush green forests, moonlit seas and all kinds of glowing artifacts...you should have played at least into the second and third maps of the High Elf and Dark Elf campaigns. All of the "realism" comes from the Order camp. It doesn't get any more fantasy with Chaos, and the Elves, and I haven't even tried a Dwarf/Greenskin yet.

Warhammer allows for quite a bit more than you imagine. Demon summoning is normal, twisted disgusting raped landscapes is all about what the Chaos are. High magic has twisted and corrupted the hell out of all the elven lands, just because of a little political/religious strife.

Quote:

---

trust me when I tell you that quests in WoW are the best in the MMO-genre so far..
and even though the "please kill 20 rabbits and bring me the ears from the bigger ones"-quests exist, there are a lot of quests which are alot greater than that.
in Wotlk you will see a lot of scripted and instanced events.. (for example "The Battle for the Undercity".. you are raiding Undercity there with a few NPCs... namely Thrall and Sylvana's and a few others, pretty cool stuff)

---

As great as Blizzard is at writing backstory (Starcraft and Warcraft II's original manuals were more story than game mechanics), Warcraft is just a quick copy-paste of Warhammer with the factions rewritten to be a racial struggle rather than a religious one. Warhammer has vastly more history than Warcraft, and if you read the text accompanying the quests, you'd see a lot more of that. The public quests are fairly instanced, with champions (that I might recognize if I knew Warhammer better) charging out at each chapter to slaughter you, but still remain open.

If you want a backstory or a huge fleshed out story, you should have been reading the Tome of Knowledge, accessible from the menu at any time. The book fills out as you play through the game, filling with all the lore from 25 years of Warhammer history, and plenty of original content too. Not only that, you get all the fun and worthless things like titles from it as well.




In lighter news, I also just finished Portal. Took a while to get around to it, but I really enjoyed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrayZ33

no, the point of graphics in games is to create atmosphere, but I know what you mean.

---

No, artstyle determines atmosphere, graphics are just a mean to convey that artstyle, thus in pure graphics, warhammer is superior, the value of the artstyle however is determined by the user.

I finished Stalker: Clear Sky today. It kinda sucked...

I'm playing Crysis Warhead now. It's pretty good. They optimized the performance a bit, as the game feels smoother than the original Crysis. It feels like there's less stuttering even though the frame rates haven't improved at all.

Started Sonic Chronicles today...fairly entertaining.

Oh? I wasn't aware it was out already. I thought it was coming out the 30th.

edit: Scratch that, EU version. US on the 30th.

I finished Crysis Warhead today. It was pretty short just like the original Crysis, and I found it to be a lot easier. There's a lot less close quarters combat, and for most of the game you can just sit back and snipe all the enemies. During the few close quarter fights, I just went stealth and punched everyone to death.

Not a bad game though. Performance is better than the original Crysis.

Was it annoying having to play as the dumb aussie mook character? That's the main reason I haven't thought about getting the game.

Crysis Warhead... its TOO easy.
i could go in whole swarm of enemies (high difficulity(not delta)) in stealth mode, aim, unstealth, stealth, move, restore energy, repeat to kill any number of enemies. Also plot was better than crysis. Ahh and they made korean suited guys easier to kill and thats a plus, 2 rockets in head and they lived in crysis.
I'll try Stalker Clear Sky - i will just need to save some money.

DMC4 on pc... ahhh so much better then the console versions, capcom how I love thee ;o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkshadow

DMC4 on pc... ahhh so much better then the console versions, capcom how I love thee ;o

---

Really? I downloaded the demo, but I only watched my brother play it. You talking about performance or gameplay?

It was actually one of the reasons I got my PS3 when I did-- for the button mashers.

I don't think I'd ever be able to play a game like DMC 4 on the PC. It'd be like typing when you chained combos.

i can own Bloody Palace faster on keyboard than most ps2 players on pad... but on pad its much more fun! Same as Buffalobiian - button mashers are reason for my ps3... along with mgs4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buffalobiian

Really? I downloaded the demo, but I only watched my brother play it. You talking about performance or gameplay?

It was actually one of the reasons I got my PS3 when I did-- for the button mashers.

---

Both, the pc version is obviously the best version, not many ppl know this, but the ps3 and x360 versions are pc ports. And because it came out later, it has added features aswel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animus

I don't think I'd ever be able to play a game like DMC 4 on the PC. It'd be like typing when you chained combos.

---

lolwut? why do ignorant ppl like you still exist? gamepads for pc have existed since the dawn of pc gaming, and anyone with a wired x360 controller can hook that up to pc aswel,