Enemy Territory: Quake Wars Screens

[RainOfTerror]

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars pits the armies of Earth against the invading alien Strogg in the ultimate online strategic shooter. Featuring strategic team play, persistent character promotions, day and nighttime combat missions, and the universe's most powerful weapons and vehicles, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars transports players to the front lines of an epic new war for Earth.

Check out new Enemy Territory: Quake Wars screens (http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=32029) over at WorthPlaying.

[Liquidize105]

Fully articulated interior? Looks interesting.

[KarmaGhost]

Yummy, yummy. Must buy new GPU...

[GodFather]

god that looks amazing. I hope my 6800ultra is still good enough to max out those settings.

[earthworm48]

I highly doubt it.

[Darkholmme]

THE most powerful weapons in the UNIVERSE?

I'm sold.

[DirtyChimp]

and the most powerful vehicles in the UNIVERSE.

[StoneGut]

Sign me up!

[Grimmjow]

this games look so freaking GREEAT!

[Voodoo]

I highly doubt it.

If a 6800ultra is not powerful enough to play this game, I hope the fucking game falls flat on its face and fails.

[Grimmjow]

If a 6800ultra is not powerful enough to play this game, I hope the fucking game falls flat on its face and fails.

so much hate!

[Voodoo]

so much hate!

Ok... Ok... :)

Well, if the nVidia 6800ultra video card isn't powerful enough to run this game at a very high level then I do not think that the market for this game will be very favorable. The reason is that the justification to spend $300+ on a video card to play a $50 game very high level detail seems to perplex me. Perhaps this is the cause of the decline of PC gaming?

[Frogleg Special]

Lower the detail level. Lower the resolution. What's so hard about it?

[Schnoogs]

When Doom 3 came out it was arguably the most graphical impressive engine to date yet it worked on the XBox with its paultry 733mhz CPU and its geforce 3 video card.

My point? Carmack is a WHIZ when it comes to optimization and scalability. I can assure you that you will be able to configure it in such a manner so that it will play on a 6800.

[Grimmjow]

Ok... Ok... :)

Well, if the nVidia 6800ultra video card isn't powerful enough to run this game at a very high level then I do not think that the market for this game will be very favorable. The reason is that the justification to spend $300+ on a video card to play a $50 game very high level detail seems to perplex me. Perhaps this is the cause of the decline of PC gaming?

put it like this I KNOW FOR A FACT! that if you have a 6800 ultra you will have alot of fun with this game :)

[Klade]

^what an odd comment.

At any rate this is one of the few games thats currently riding high on my expectation list. Right up there with Dreamfall.

These screen shots are looking good but me thinks I will have to upgrade to take full advantage of this game.

Does anyone know when this game is currently projected to come out?

[Genital Eclipse]

put it like this I KNOW FOR A FACT! that if you have a 6800 ultra you will have alot of fun with this game :)

I can confirm and deny this statement.

[Mozgus]

My point? Carmack is a WHIZ when it comes to optimization and scalability. I can assure you that you will be able to configure it in such a manner so that it will play on a 6800.
Because Carmack crafted the game all by himself, one-handed, while eating figs and watching Frasier. Too bad he didn't care about optimizing for Ati cards.

[KarmaGhost]

When Doom 3 came out it was arguably the most graphical impressive engine to date yet it worked on the XBox with its paultry 733mhz CPU and its geforce 3 video card.

My point? Carmack is a WHIZ when it comes to optimization and scalability. I can assure you that you will be able to configure it in such a manner so that it will play on a 6800.I'm not saying he's not, but games on a console and games on a PC are completely different stories.

[mpsmith]

No one said it wouldnt run well- just that it wouldnt run with maximized settings. This is already the case with FEAR, though. No 6800 series can run FEAR with maxed settings (1600x1200 is minimum to be considered "maximum").

[Heretic Machine]

No one said it wouldnt run well- just that it wouldnt run with maximized settings. This is already the case with FEAR, though. No 6800 series can run FEAR with maxed settings (1600x1200 is minimum to be considered "maximum").

I'm really sick of people who think that you can't play a PC game if you can't max out the settings... It's fucking immature, and unless you have a LOT of money laying around, you're never going to be able to do that consistently for more than a few months.

[defiant]

No one said it wouldnt run well- just that it wouldnt run with maximized settings. This is already the case with FEAR, though. No 6800 series can run FEAR with maxed settings (1600x1200 is minimum to be considered "maximum").

Its amazing how people spout off crap as if they are an authority on everything. FEAR uses a completely different engine which is much much more shader intensive and of couse is based on the DX platform. Ultimately the proof is in the pudding.....see
http://www.telefragged.com/previews/etquakewars/

We When I asked if this game would run roughly as well as last year's Quake 4, I was told that because of a totally revamped renderer, many gamers will actually see better performance out of this game than Q4, although it will depend on a lot of factors including how many players you've got on your screen at once. The visuals were damned impressive, though, and the computer we got to see it on was far from today's cutting edge. With a Pentium 4 3.4GHz CPU and a Geforce 6800 video card, this game looked wonderful and still moved along at a pretty good speed at high resolution - and the guys at Splash Damage still have plenty of optimizations to do.

[baz]

I'm really sick of people who think that you can't play a PC game if you can't max out the settings... It's fucking immature, and unless you have a LOT of money laying around, you're never going to be able to do that consistently for more than a few months.

I don't think he's saying that at all, he just pointed out that you wont be able to run it at max settings. Not that you can't play it at other settings. Shit, even with a 7800GTX I can't run everything at max with the newest games, as there is really no limit on the madness you can put settings too.

Over half of my mates who played HL2 did so on a GeForce 4 card, and loved every second of it.

[bapenguin]

Looking pretty good!

[Schnoogs]

I'm not saying he's not, but games on a console and games on a PC are completely different stories.

This is coming out for the PC and we're talking about PC video cards. The old XBox happened to use PC hardware that was pretty outdated when Doom 3 hit the shelves.

[easi]

"Doom 3" does not run on Xbox. "Doom 3 Lite" runs on Xbox. Get it right. Also, if you don't drop a few hundred bucks on PC hardware every year or so, you might as well go sit on your couch and play Halo.

[Schnoogs]

"Doom 3" does not run on Xbox. "Doom 3 Lite" runs on Xbox. Get it right. Also, if you don't drop a few hundred bucks on PC hardware every year or so, you might as well go sit on your couch and play Halo.

Tell us more Mr. Scientist!! And for all us of clueless neanderthals whats the difference between Doom 3 and Doom 3 Lite?? (Seeing as id themselves isn't aware of its existance)

[Oblivion]

Worthplaying has to change that goddamn screenshot viewer engine, it's annoying as hell.

[earthworm48]

Carmack isn't working on the game. It's all splash damage, at least as far as I know. Its one of these games using an id property that is in development with another studio but they stick "id software" somewhere on it as they are a pretty well known name. Like with RTCW. They (Splash Damage) apparently are in the same town as me (Bromley, UK), and if this argument was to really annoy me I would consoder going to them and asking them myself. I highly doubt you'll get max out of a 6800Ultra on this, the card will be at least 2 years old by the time it is released. No one is saying that you won't be able to play the game though.

The Doom 3 on the xbox had to be chopped and moved around to address the sizes of the levels and remember that it was running at a pretty low res with toned down textures, e.t.c. It isn't the same as the PC version but I'm also going to say that overall its not "radically" different.

[Schnoogs]

Carmack isn't working on the game. It's all splash damage, at least as far as I know. Its one of these games using an id property that is in development with another studio but they stick "id software" somewhere on it as they are a pretty well known name. Like with RTCW. They (Splash Damage) apparently are in the same town as me (Bromley, UK), and if this argument was to really annoy me I would consoder going to them and asking them myself. I highly doubt you'll get max out of a 6800Ultra on this, the card will be at least 2 years old by the time it is released. No one is saying that you won't be able to play the game though.

The Doom 3 on the xbox had to be chopped and moved around to address the sizes of the levels and remember that it was running at a pretty low res with toned down textures, e.t.c. It isn't the same as the PC version but I'm also going to say that overall its not "radically" different.

Carmack created the Megatexture Technology for Quake Wars so yes he is working on it..

And you proved my point in regards to the XBox...the engine is configurable so that it can run on a wide range of hardware hence the fact that Doom 3 was successfully run on a Voodoo 2...yes I just said a Voodoo 2.

Lowering the res and changing the textures does not equal changing the engine...I think you're arguing my point to me! ;)

[earthworm48]

I meant the game not the engine. I don't really argue that the engine is "the same" or not, but there are going to be differences even though the base is still the Doom 3 engine. Yeah he did the megatexture tech, but he isn't on the game is he? They are using the tech he created, he isn't there developing the game with them. Thats like saying he is working on Prey as it uses the Doom 3 engine.

[Schnoogs]

I meant the game not the engine. I don't really argue that the engine is "the same" or not, but there are going to be differences even though the base is still the Doom 3 engine. Yeah he did the megatexture tech, but he isn't on the game is he? They are using the tech he created, he isn't there developing the game with them. Thats like saying he is working on Prey as it uses the Doom 3 engine.

Back to the actual topic at hand...Quake Wars, based off of history, will most likely be playable on a 6800 due to the inherent configurability of engines like Doom 3.

Although Carmack did not "write" Quake 4 and Prey they both inherent the same core code base and offer the same level of configurability in regards to resolution, texture quality, anti aliasing, shadows, etc, etc.

My final comment is that I'm really looking forward to his game!

[sTubbs]

When Doom 3 came out it was arguably the most graphical impressive engine to date yet it worked on the XBox with its paultry 733mhz CPU and its geforce 3 video card.

My point? Carmack is a WHIZ when it comes to optimization and scalability. I can assure you that you will be able to configure it in such a manner so that it will play on a 6800.

This is why I am excited about Carmack working heavily with the 360. If anyone is going to show us what the 360 is really capable of, it is Carmack. I am not saying he will make the best games, but I will not be surprised in the least if he makes the best engine. It might even be appropriate to expect as much.

Oh, and to easi, you are talking like someone who: A) has not actually played Doom 3 on the XBOX; or B) has but is to much of a blind and jaded PC fanboy to realize or admit that the XBOX version was phenomenonally close to the PC version, especially considering the hardware.

[Schnoogs]

This is why I am excited about Carmack working heavily with the 360. If anyone is going to show us what the 360 is really capable of, it is Carmack. I am not saying he will make the best games, but I will not be surprised in the least if he makes the best engine. It might even be appropriate to expect as much.

Oh, and to easi, you are talking like someone who: A) has not actually played Doom 3 on the XBOX; or B) has but is to much of a blind and jaded PC fanboy to realize or admit that the XBOX version was phenomenonally close to the PC version, especially considering the hardware.

Getting Doom 3 to work on the XBox didnt require a rewrite...Doom 3 was built around hardware features that became standard with the GeForce 3. Pixel and Vertex shaders. "Porting" Doom 3 to the XBox probably required getting rid of the high res textures and support for newer shaders.

You can almost think of shaders as content as opposed to an engine feature...they're as reusable and disposable as texture maps and geometry. Plus if the hardware doesn't have native support for that shader it can either run in software or substitute an older shader instead.

I'm VERY confident that Quake Wars will be as scalable as other Doom 3 powered engines...it will work fine on everything from a 9800 to Quad SLI! ;)

[mpsmith]

Its amazing how people spout off crap as if they are an authority on everything. FEAR uses a completely different engine which is much much more shader intensive and of couse is based on the DX platform. Ultimately the proof is in the pudding.....see
http://www.telefragged.com/previews/etquakewars/

Obviously they use different engines. My point was simply that any game made in the last year and on wont run maxed. That's it.

[Schnoogs]

Obviously they use different engines. My point was simply that any game made in the last year and on wont run maxed. That's it.

I think thats a valid claim...I wasnt able to max out FEAR until I got my X1900XT

[Achilles]

Ok... Ok... :)

Well, if the nVidia 6800ultra video card isn't powerful enough to run this game at a very high level then I do not think that the market for this game will be very favorable. The reason is that the justification to spend $300+ on a video card to play a $50 game very high level detail seems to perplex me. Perhaps this is the cause of the decline of PC gaming?That's not true. It'll be coming out on the 360 as well, which is where I plan to play it. It may fail on the PC because people will have to turn their graphics down to play it, but as long as they have a good number of people per-match on the 360, it'll be the #1 online game there till Halo 3 comes out.

I've got no use for upgrading my computer at this point, and it's not just the $600 video card, I'd have to throw out my non-PCI express board, RAM, and Proc. And just to play a game that I can already play on the 360.

[earthworm48]

Is it coming to the 360? I haven't heard anything yet.

[Achilles]

Is it coming to the 360? I haven't heard anything yet.Wow could have sworn those shots were in 720p, but they're actually 4:3. I’d be totally shocked if it doesn’t come to the 360, given ID's stance on that platform, and the graphics this thing is trying to push. So my previous post is all theory that relies on it coming to the 360.

[defiant]

Obviously they use different engines. My point was simply that any game made in the last year and on wont run maxed. That's it.

Well gee, I manage to run Rainbow 6 lockdown and Empires at War at full details 1600x1200 on my obsolete 6800gt, p4 3.2ghz@3.5 and 1 gig of ram and they were only released last week. :rolleyes:

There goes your theory

[Oblivion]

since when 6800gt is considered obsolete? sometimes I hate this neverending arms race.

[Voodoo]

since when 6800gt is considered obsolete? sometimes I hate this neverending arms race.

I hate it too...

I just got a eVGA 6800GS AGP and it rocks. Since I use a LCD monitor, the max resolution I can run is 1280x1024. At 1280x1024, the 6800GS is able to play the following games with all settings at maximum/highest (except for AA as AA has no effect I can see on my LCD monitor) : FEAR, Quake4, Call of Duty, Call of Duty 2, Battlefield 2, Empire at War and Battlefront 2. I even turn Soft Shadows ON in FEAR.

I think what helps my situation alot is the my system is an Athlon64. I believe that the in-cpu memory controller helps a great deal.

[earthworm48]

So you can play Quake 4 with the Ultra textures and full AA?

[Voodoo]

So you can play Quake 4 with the Ultra textures and full AA?

Negative. Just to be clear, let me quote myself...

(except for AA as AA has no effect I can see on my LCD monitor)

[earthworm48]

What about the textures?

[Voodoo]

What about the textures?

You quite possibly knew the answer to this before you asked... The below is information about the Ultra Quality setting in Quake 4.

Ultra Quality: This mode is the highest possible for Quake 4 and was originally designed for a graphics card with 512MB of Video RAM. No compression is used for anything, hence while graphics quality is at the best it can possibly be (not including Antialiasing, which you can also enable separately), there is a major performance hit for many current systems. Due to the lack of compression loadup times are theoretically reduced, however in exchange for this most systems will notice a lot more freezes and small loading pauses as video information is constantly being swapped into and out of your Video RAM. For the most part the difference between High and Ultra Quality modes is difficult to tell, and thus Ultra mode is not recommended for all but the highest level machines.

There are no 6800gs AGP cards with 512MB of RAM, meaning I play Quake 4 at High with no AA turned on. Playing at Ultra Quality isn't possible for my card in Quake 4.

[earthworm48]

So you weren't playing it at the highest settings. Ragardless of what little difference it makes you didn't mention that in your post.

[Voodoo]

So you weren't playing it at the highest settings. Ragardless of what little difference it makes you didn't mention that in your post.

It makes big difference. See I said Highest/Maximum and am covered under both statements. Maximum covers Quake 4 because the maximum I can play it at with my physical setup is at Textures set at High. This is the reason I put Highest/Maximum. I am not aware of many cards that can run Quake 4 at Ultra Textures with full AA PLAYABLE because of the 512MB requirement. Maybe, the latest 7800 with 512MB will be able to play Quake 4 at that level...

BUT, does that make the game any better? That was the point of my orignal post in this forum topic. Developer's obsession with the graphics component has let the Gameplay component falter. I've been pretty much on target with the discussion within this topic about that while you have been targetting me in particular.

[Achilles]

Developer's obsession with the graphics component has let the Gameplay component falter.Usually it's two different groups of people working on those aspects with some crossover. If the gameplay sucks it's because the designers, scripters and/or level designers didn't know what they're doing, not because the art lead wanted 2 million polygon models out of his artists. Look at games without good or technically difficult art, would you say that on average they have better gameplay because they weren't obsessed with graphics? I'd actually say that usually games with better graphics also have better gameplay because it's simply a better team working on the game.

[Voodoo]

Usually it's two different groups of people working on those aspects with some crossover. If the gameplay sucks it's because the designers, scripters and/or level designers didn't know what they're doing, not because the art lead wanted 2 million polygon models out of his artists. Look at games without good or technically difficult art, would you say that on average they have better gameplay because they weren't obsessed with graphics? I'd actually say that usually games with better graphics also have better gameplay because it's simply a better team working on the game.

You are absolutely right. But, I be damned if I can find many games recently that match the gameplay seen in games from the mid and early 90s. They are remaking movies, how come the same isn't done to classic bad assed games? If the gameplay was solid back then, why would it not work out good in the present day. For example, the Ultima series would be great redone with modern graphics... But would the gameplay from the originals be lost through the graphics update? I would say, most likely... What do you think?

[Voodoo]

Usually it's two different groups of people working on those aspects with some crossover. If the gameplay sucks it's because the designers, scripters and/or level designers didn't know what they're doing, not because the art lead wanted 2 million polygon models out of his artists. Look at games without good or technically difficult art, would you say that on average they have better gameplay because they weren't obsessed with graphics? I'd actually say that usually games with better graphics also have better gameplay because it's simply a better team working on the game.

Doom 3? Quake 4? Those two are the top in graphics engines but the gameplay is the stink.

Then we have FEAR, a great combination of both.

Finally we have Total Annihialtion that will, to this day, beat the living shit out of any RTS and then some... Gameplay high and graphics low compared to today's standards.

[Achilles]

For example, the Ultima series would be great redone with modern graphics... But would the gameplay from the originals be lost through the graphics update? I would say, most likely... What do you think?I think the gameplay for most of those old games would have to be updated. If you go back and play them, say like the original Tomb Raider, or Doom or something, the gameplay might seem fine at first, but once the nostalgia wears off you'd realize just how poor most of the controls on that stuff actually were, and how tedious a lot of it is. Ultima would probably hold up a bit better because the turn based gameplay it's got and the fact that it's an RPG, but compare it perhaps to Baldur's Gate 2.

So I think if the gameplay was lost, it wouldn't be because of the graphics, it would be because they were trying to modernize the gameplay.

They got all the way up to Ultima 9, obviously some graphical jumps took place along the way. Would you say the gameplay went down hill, or was it just the story, pacing, characters, etc?

[Achilles]

Doom 3? Quake 4? Those two are the top in graphics engines but the gameplay is the stink.

Then we have FEAR, a great combination of both.The gameplay may be the stink on Doom 3 and Quake, to you, but I would suggest you haven't played many bad looking modern FPS games. Because the gameplay could have been much, much worse. I actually thought Quake wasn't that bad in the gameplay department, graphically it could have been more solid. Like pixelization and color banding on a sky box these days shouldn't exist, it looks crappy, makes the whole world look crappy. Also you replied twice to my post, no fair :P

[Voodoo]

I think the gameplay for most of those old games would have to be updated. If you go back and play them, say like the original Tomb Raider, or Doom or something, the gameplay might seem fine at first, but once the nostalgia wears off you'd realize just how poor most of the controls on that stuff actually were, and how tedious a lot of it is. Ultima would probably hold up a bit better because the turn based gameplay it's got and the fact that it's an RPG, but compare it perhaps to Baldur's Gate 2.

So I think if the gameplay was lost, it wouldn't be because of the graphics, it would be because they were trying to modernize the gameplay.

They got all the way up to Ultima 9, obviously some graphical jumps took place along the way. Would you say the gameplay went down hill, or was it just the story, pacing, characters, etc?

For Ultima in particular, the gameplay went downhill seperate from the graphics engine. Even though the graphics engine was and still is quite buggy for Ultima 9, the story and lack of freedom so prevalient in previous Ultimas (except 8) was absent. In Ultima 9's development, Lord British's obsession with bringing the world of Britannia to 3D life changed the focus of the development team from story & gameplay to a semi-playable game with a buggy graphics engine.

And since we are talking about graphics vs gameplay...

World of Warcraft vs Everquest 2. :)

[Voodoo]

The gameplay may be the stink on Doom 3 and Quake, to you, but I would suggest you haven't played many bad looking modern FPS games. Because the gameplay could have been much, much worse. I actually thought Quake wasn't that bad in the gameplay department, graphically it could have been more solid. Like pixelization and color banding on a sky box these days shouldn't exist, it looks crappy, makes the whole world look crappy. Also you replied twice to my post, no fair :P

Ha! I'm sorry I am kinda quick on these responses because the website sends me updates to forums. LOL!

Doom 3 and Quake 4 are not that bad in the gameplay department, but I don't consider them to be on the same level as FEAR, Call of Duty 1/2 or Brothers in Arms.

And I have played every popular and semi popular FPS since Wolfenstein 3D came out, so I guess that covers the history of them. But I am also talking RPGs and RTSs too.

[Achilles]

And since we are talking about graphics vs gameplay...

World of Warcraft vs Everquest 2. :)Ah the classic example. I'd argue that WoW is a technically extremely good game. They have light-bloom (forget what they call it in-game) they've got amazing ground lighting, fogging, hue shifts, and specular maps, and they use far more polygons in their every day geometry, like the ground, to create a really interesting landscape. If you look at WoW it's got a LOT more going on in a scene than EQ2, which has flat boring landscapes. The gameplay in EQ2 needed to keep up with the updates that WoW got from the basic EQ model.

[Voodoo]

Ah the classic example. I'd argue that WoW is a technically extremely good game. They have light-bloom (forget what they call it in-game) they've got amazing ground lighting, fogging, hue shifts, and specular maps, and they use far more polygons in their every day geometry, like the ground, to create a really interesting landscape. If you look at WoW it's got a LOT more going on in a scene than EQ2, which has flat boring landscapes. The gameplay in EQ2 needed to keep up with the updates that WoW got from the basic EQ model.

I think the comparison of WoW to EQ2 is not only a good example but a great example. EQ2 is supposed to have (I am told) a far better graphics engine than WoW yet the Gameplay of WoW overcomes that difference.

I honestly feel that developers ought to stay in a particular graphics/engine environment for a bit longer than they are presently. It is nice, though, that all the games release do mostly offer the ability to tone the graphics side down if you can't match the recommended specs vs required specs. So I'll give them that much for sure. Couldn't do that back in the earlier days of 3D gaming.

[Achilles]

I think the comparison of WoW to EQ2 is not only a good example but a great example. EQ2 is supposed to have (I am told) a far better graphics engine than WoW yet the Gameplay of WoW overcomes that difference.You should check out EQ2. Their focus was totally in the wrong place. Their water moves and everything has normal mapping, but the landscapes are barren and flat and the lighting is ineffective, all those things are engine things, it's just where they decided to spend their resources. EQ2 may have a more complicated engine that can do crazy shadows, or cloth physics, but WoW does a LOT of artistic stuff in its engine, it just focuses on the environment instead of the characters.

There's more to graphics than normal mapping and cloth physics, WoW is graphically a better game (though less hardware intensive) and has better gameplay. The same care they took making their game fun went into making their game good looking, it's usually that way.

[Voodoo]

You should check out EQ2. Their focus was totally in the wrong place. Their water moves and everything has normal mapping, but the landscapes are barren and flat and the lighting is ineffective, all those things are engine things, it's just where they decided to spend their resources. EQ2 may have a more complicated engine that can do crazy shadows, or cloth physics, but WoW does a LOT of artistic stuff in its engine, it just focuses on the environment instead of the characters.

There's more to graphics than normal mapping and cloth physics, WoW is graphically a better game (though less hardware intensive) and has better gameplay. The same care they took making their game fun went into making their game good looking, it's usually that way.

You and I are then singing in chorus. :) What you say is absolutely correct about both EQ2 and WoW. So... Now about that gameplay vs graphics thing?

[Achilles]

You and I are then singing in chorus. :) What you say is absolutely correct about both EQ2 and WoW. So... Now about that gameplay vs graphics thing?
My idea of graphics isn’t just being able to push the latest hardware to its knees, it’s making a really good looking scene. You can be obsessed with graphics and turn a game like WoW out, it just means you’re paying more attention to what’s important, and you know better how to achieve it.

Some people think being obsessed with graphics is just pushing some new kind of shader, or crushing the latest video card. That can either be effective or ineffective depending on what the end result is, but the end result is graphics, and whether they’re good or bad, not what graphical features you can spout to make techno-geeks drool.

There’s an idea out there that WoW has bad graphics in comparison to EQ2, and I don’t think that’s true. And as far as gameplay goes, EQ2 doesn’t exactly fall flat in the gameplay department, it just caters to a very specific crowd which is the ultra-hard-core MMORPG player.

Are you saying that WoW has bad graphics? Because it would seem to support that, on average, games with good gameplay have good graphics.

[Voodoo]

My idea of graphics isn’t just being able to push the latest hardware to its knees, it’s making a really good looking scene. You can be obsessed with graphics and turn a game like WoW out, it just means you’re paying more attention to what’s important, and you know better how to achieve it.

Some people think being obsessed with graphics is just pushing some new kind of shader, or crushing the latest video card. That can either be effective or ineffective depending on what the end result is, but the end result is graphics, and whether they’re good or bad, not what graphical features you can spout to make techno-geeks drool.

There’s an idea out there that WoW has bad graphics in comparison to EQ2, and I don’t think that’s true. And as far as gameplay goes, EQ2 doesn’t exactly fall flat in the gameplay department, it just caters to a very specific crowd which is the ultra-hard-core MMORPG player.

Are you saying that WoW has bad graphics? Because it would seem to support that, on average, games with good gameplay have good graphics.

You and I are in agreement. I think World of Warcraft has excellent graphics yet the engine technology between WoW and EQ2 has EQ2 far more powerful YET the developers make better use of WoW's engine to make a much graphically appealing game while presenting a great gameplay environment.

My belief is that developers seem to be obsessed with the latest graphics engine ability (shaders, texture size, poly count, etc...) that there are significant examples of when the gameplay falters due to overfocusment (is that a word) on the graphics engine and its abilities.

This, in turn, will make someone preach to someone else that a GeForce FX5900 is a way outdate graphics card due to Quake 4 or FEAR and the owner states that "I don't play those games" all the while the preacher not exactly 'getting it'.

For example, does running FEAR at 1600x, SM3.0, high textures and full AA enhance the gameplay at a far higher level than someone playing it at 1024x with medium textures, SM2.0 and no AA? Or is the gameplay enhanced somewhat? Or is it an entirely personal, person by person, experience and their particular visual taste?

[TheKeck]

You two would do well to jump on the Evil Avatar chatroom. :p

[Voodoo]

You two would do well to jump on the Evil Avatar chatroom. :p

Keck! What's up brotherman. What chatroom are you talking about? The one on Bap's site?

[TheKeck]

Keck! What's up brotherman. What chatroom are you talking about? The one on Bap's site?

Hey man. Not much. Yeah, I was referring to Bap's site. I was just kidding around, though. It was just funny that the two of you traded like a dozen messages back and forth. :)

[Achilles]

Hey man. Not much. Yeah, I was referring to Bap's site. I was just kidding around, though. It was just funny that the two of you traded like a dozen messages back and forth. :)Yeah I figured you were just joking around. :)

So what do you think about graphics vs gameplay TheKeck? Clearly the game that's the focus of this article looks totally amazing. And the gameplay will probably be amazing as well.

I'd agree with Voodoo that a game with an excessive focus on getting the most out of a video card won't help gameplay unless it's done in a way that supports the gameplay. But I think that if it's going to have bad gameplay, it'll have bad gameplay no matter how big a focus they're putting on graphics.

[Voodoo]

Yeah I figured you were just joking around. :)

So what do you think about graphics vs gameplay TheKeck? Clearly the game that's the focus of this article looks totally amazing. And the gameplay will probably be amazing as well.

I'd agree with Voodoo that a game with an excessive focus on getting the most out of a video card won't help gameplay unless it's done in a way that supports the gameplay. But I think that if it's going to have bad gameplay, it'll have bad gameplay no matter how big a focus they're putting on graphics.

Exactly! :)