World of Warcraft graphics overhaul 'probable,' says producer
Brack cited two previous MMOs – Ultima Online and EverQuest – that have tried the graphics reboot with only moderate success. "In each case a lot of people continued to play with the original client, because it was faster, or they preferred it, or were just used to it or whatever," he said. Wrath of the Lich King, which will have some optional effects for high-end PC users, is scheduled for release Fall 2008.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
GenBanks @ May 16th 2008 11:52AM
Because of the art style WoW has aged really well. But I look forward to seeing what kind of 'graphics updates' they add. I wish the maximum draw distance could be furhter though, I already have all the settings up to the maximum and it still kind of annoys me when things gray out in the distance.
Co @ May 16th 2008 12:24PM
World of Warcraft.... I'll never understand it.
Ghen @ May 16th 2008 1:30PM
I agree with Mr. Banks, WoW's style is not bleeding edge enough to need to keep up with competitors, but an overhaul will go a very long way for returning customers with WotLK who don't want to see the same old sights in a different pattern.
As for Co, you don't even understand how to use replies correctly. Its not a method to get your (inane) comments to the top, its for um. Replying.
MrCitizen @ May 16th 2008 4:26PM
Try typing
/console farClip 999
http://www.wowinsider.com/2008/04/24/macro-for-a-prettier-wow/
Lars @ May 16th 2008 3:31PM
I always thought WoW was fugly, and I'm an avid WoW player (2 accounts since launch, still playing). The stylized look of WoW has definitely helped it to not look so "aged" even though it had crappy polygon's and such compared to other MMO's. The one thing that it did do better than other MMO's was the animations. Very realistic and smooth. Poor performance was a problem I had with it from the start (not that it didn't perform OK on my machine, but for the way it looks it should be like 90 FPS), though they've definitely upped it since then. Still, it could use more performance tweaks. Old EQ (which the polygon counts are about the same as WoW), ran decently on a P1 200MHz for christ's sake, while WoW barely runs decently on a P4 3.4GHz.
Anyways, I'm up for an upgrade in graphics, but only if they either make it perform better so that it'll run at the same framerate or allow people to keep using the old graphics.
ntemstr @ May 29th 2008 11:00PM
Lars... processor speed? Lol c'mon kid. Everybody knows ram + memory on ur graphics card + FSB is more important than the simple speed of ur cpu. And if your having troubles playing something like wow w/ a P4 3.4ghz... hahahahahaha holly crap you need to stop building your own pc's and buy from dell. B/c u clearly have no idea what you're doing. LOL. Cheers ^^
whymog @ May 16th 2008 11:54AM
Blizzard knows how to give a game a timeless look, no matter when it was made. Any graphical overhaul would be nice, but I don't think WoW will ever look ugly. They've managed to put a lot of character into the low-poly count designs.
Dano @ May 16th 2008 2:51PM
OK since PRo truth has about as much forsight as a goldfish has memory let me break it down for you...
First off im not a WoW fan. i AM an RTS fan. and if yo THINK that Blizzard NOT WOW.
Now then the root of ALL MMOs or MMORPGs is subscribers.
Most MMO or MMORPGs have failed because lack of followers not lack of prettiness... in short the mases cant play the games because htey ned to have a powerhouse system to actually make it look pretty so the majority of gaming dollars are left in reserve... enter WoW easy to play history of good games and most of all anything short of a toaster ( yes somoen ported it it onto a cell phone even ) can use the engine. thus it becomes wildly popular because anyone cay use it.
lets look at crysis... freaking ENORMOUSLY AWESOME look and no one can run it aside from your top end builds... hence the game did OK but not as brilliantly as a lesser intense first person shooter.. .
In short high end pretty is aa niche market. wide spread sales and popularity are based on accessibility and Blizzard knows this all too well... This is why they are so damned popular. Oh and Pro until i see your "Decent Art" id reserve bashing anyone... and uh... go look at SC2.
Pro-Truth League @ May 16th 2008 11:57AM
WoW is, and always will be, most likely, ugly.
From launch until today, it has always looked like a DirectX 7 era game... from around 1998/1999.
That's just how MMORPGs are, unfortunate. One of the many pitfalls of that terrible genre.
Plus, Blizzard simply can't make good graphics.
Hot$auce_Magik @ May 16th 2008 12:02PM
Well the development of these games is so long, by the time they are done, the "cutting edge graphics" they started with are at like 5 years old.
Dave @ May 16th 2008 12:12PM
I've got to disagree. You may not LIKE the graphics in Warcraft, but it's not as if you've offered any actual proof other than personal prejudice.
No game on the market does what WoW does when it comes to color theory, and because of that alone a great number of us will always find it beautiful. The environmental design is also quite respectable and in many places still breathtaking. I do have quibbles with the character design and customization (or lack there of) but the animation is excellent.
Pro-Truth League @ May 16th 2008 12:47PM
Trying to argue with WoW fans about anything negative about WoW is like trying to tell a cat to get off the Table. IT JUST WON'T FRIGGIN' LISTEN!
Anywho... I'm talking about graphics. Not art. Graphics. GRAAAAPHICS. In which case, it, and about any other MMO, are fairly ugly. They have to be. It's a pitfall of MMOs. Else they'd have to limit the amount of folk on screen and such.
Anywho... What IS up with Blizzard and limited character creation? Any game that lets folk do that, from them.. always fails in that area. You'd think a company with such a gigantic fanbase would cater to that... moreover, you think the base would care.
Rayonic @ May 16th 2008 1:07PM
Oh, well why didn't you say that you were just talking about GRAAAAPHICS?
Actualy, I'm not even sure what GRAAAAPHICS are. Can you show us a screenshot with just GRAAAAPHICS and no art?
Pro-Truth League @ May 16th 2008 2:05PM
You know damned well what I meant by the graphics, and not the art. There's no need to mock me.
Dave @ May 16th 2008 3:28PM
There's plenty of reason to mock you. As a working CG artist, I can tell you professionally what a total dumbass you are. Cat on the table my ass, you aren't equipped to debate this.
At this point in WoW, I'm not actually even a big fan of it. I like exploring the world but a lot of the gameplay mechanics and endgame nonsense get in the way.
However, the art direction and style (STYYYYYYYYLLLLEEEEE) are fantastic. I even gave you good, quantifiable reasons (difficult to do in art) as to why the game looks good (color and design). Until you do the same on some level other than "I don't like the GRAPHYKS" then you can't debate this.
Pro-Truth League @ May 16th 2008 11:49PM
Art =/= graphics.
I never said the art looked bad. You're talking about something else entirely.
The TECHNICAL GRAPHICS are bad.
ntemstr @ May 29th 2008 11:07PM
Graphics in WoW are perfect. The game and its graphics are clearly stylized and not intended to be a simulation of reality. If everything tried to look as real as possible, you end up with something that looks like its trying to look real but its failing miserably b/c its impossible to run a program like that on everyday computers. So Blizzard decided to stylize WoW they way they did. But shortsighted people like you are incapable of seeing that.
Alzheimers @ May 16th 2008 12:04PM
What, no love for the Eve: Trinity graphics patch?
http://www.eve-online.com/trinity/index.html
WiNG [Life in a Game] @ May 16th 2008 1:38PM
I was just gonna mention that.
NERD EYE CANDY FTW.
FOXHOUND @ May 16th 2008 12:10PM
If WoW could match... hm... LINEAGE II in terms of artistic style(I think graphics wise, it's about the same in poly'count); that would easily hook a good percentage more into the game.
But yeah, as it stands, WoW's pretty fugly.
Kamizar @ May 16th 2008 12:14PM
That picture only brings one thing to mind...
William Murderface, Murderface, Murderface...
whymog @ May 16th 2008 3:12PM
Freeballing patch inbound?
NATO_Duke @ May 16th 2008 12:21PM
That is the most photorealistic game image I have ever seen. Really!
Not since the days of Pitfall have I seen such a vivid game image of a person.
Hot$auce_Magik @ May 16th 2008 12:30PM
Funny this post came up. I was swimming across a lake in nagrand yesterday and as I looked at the edge of the water coming closer to me, i though "this just looks sooo ridiculous." The water does not react to you coming in or out of it, no ripples or anything, and when it gets to land..its just stops. Sure you can see through it for a little bit, but all in all, its trash.
Zertoss @ May 16th 2008 12:36PM
Seems like the perfect thing to do for an optional expansion, even better if they do it like with Wrath of the Lich King and make the graphical updates completely optional, so that they don't risk alienating their customers with older rigs.
Marty @ May 16th 2008 12:42PM
Good grief, I don't even want to think about how much work that would be... I bet they pay their artists well though, so it's all good.
modified @ May 16th 2008 12:42PM
One of the biggest reasons this game has been a success is because you don't need a gaming rig to play it.
Dale @ May 16th 2008 12:57PM
Just a steady income.
Maverick Saturn @ May 16th 2008 12:59PM
Long live the blocks!!!!!!!!!!
Martez @ May 16th 2008 12:59PM
'Bout time. Even EVE Online's gotten a graphics overhaul.
Slogo @ May 16th 2008 1:09PM
It's weird for him to talk about other games doing engine overhauls and not mentioning the widely successful EvE Online engine overhaul.
Vathris @ May 16th 2008 1:31PM
Pro-Truth League,
Please use correct terminology,
"Graphics" are visual presentations on some surface, such as a wall, canvas, computer screen, paper, or stone to brand, inform, illustrate, or entertain. Examples are photographs, drawings, Line Art, graphs, diagrams, typography, numbers, symbols, etc. Graphics often combine text, illustration, and color.
-Source: Shamelessly ripped from wikipedia.com
I believe the terms you are looking for is "3d model" & “polygon budget”.
For the record, I don't know who raised you but they should have beaten the crap out of you.
Your arrogance is abysmal.
Vathris @ May 16th 2008 1:33PM
Oh sorry, I had a typo.
Please replace "is" to "are" in line 10.
Thank You.
Re1gn @ May 16th 2008 1:46PM
I give some credit to Blizzard, they've managed to do alot with so little. In terms of GFX/Illustrations/Art WTF ever, compared to other games in it's genre it's sub par. This however had done little to slow down sales or users, if anything it's helped bolster sales since it requires so little to run. Blizzard is playing with fire on this one, while a [insert term for pretty polygons] overhaul would certainly attract new users the upgrade would likely cause their current fanbase diminish... or buy new hardware. Personally, I say screw it, crank the poly count to Crysis levels and those who don't like it/can't run can go play Maple Story. Just my $0.02 but I'll always want my games to look as good as they possibly can.
LAWL @ May 16th 2008 1:50PM
So they make the next"hub" cool and leave old SW,IF ,Ogrimmar,UC etc ugly?
Or will they just remake the entire game?
Why not just make a new game instead?
No matter how good blizz can pretend WOW is,it cant be eternal.
Marzz @ May 16th 2008 2:20PM
I will never understand why there's so much hate for graphics nowadays. Seems like if a game isn't looking as good as Crysis, it gets flamed for being ugly.
I wonder when people will realize that it's not about the graphics, but gameplay. If a game's fun, then the graphics will most certainly take a back burner to the gameplay.
Using my original example, I've heard people talk about Crysis, and say things like -- "Yeah, the game's gorgeous, never seen anything that looks better. But... i wish it were more fun."
Think about that, before you flame a game for being "ugly". Remember that one of the most popular games of all time looked something like this..
| . |
Lilinka @ May 16th 2008 2:50PM
Probably because the resources spent on graphics are not the same resources spent on gameplay, you can have both good graphics, and good gameplay, you can have your cake, and eat it, too!
I understand that gameplay should trump graphics, and wholeheartedly agree with that point, but that's no reason the graphics need to suffer.
That being said, I like WoW's look, and I don't think it needs a complete graphical overhaul, just a streamlining of the core engine and then some work done to add layers of depth to the existing art. I saw some great concepts on this world of warcraft blog where someone simply converted a texture layer (specifically: the ambient color map) onto the normal map layer and specular light map layers, and the results were pretty incredible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e42oPpkiys is a good example of what you could get without spending too much more effort on it, it would really require the engine at its core to be re-overhauled and made more efficient, that's the primary problem with making it look that good, is efficiency.
Lilinka @ May 16th 2008 2:54PM
I should note that this would also be an option that could easily be enabled/disabled in graphics with a good engine, so a minimal performance hit to lower end rigs (and possibly if coded properly as little as an if-then switch, possibly even less.)
Marzz @ May 16th 2008 3:01PM
I do realize that other MMO's have had downloadable graphics packs, and you can choose which one you want to use.
But wow really doesn't need one..
Lilinka @ May 16th 2008 2:58PM
Whoops, sorry for the triple post, but I realize now I think I linked the wrong thing, the youtube render is a bit more than just that, what I meant to link was http://bp1.blogger.com/_TSDES-kNaiA/R8dlkm4y2vI/AAAAAAAAADY/67KaP8yGcxM/s1600-h/warlock.PNG a simple picture but illustrates a very visible quality difference at almost no work from the artists, it'd still require some engine overhauling to make it more efficient, which is better for everyone if done properly.
Procris @ May 16th 2008 5:21PM
Graphical overhauls rarely work with any success. For starters no one wants to buy the game a second time and no matter what most people prefer having the fastest "version". One of the best things about WoW is that it runs on a large range of hardware from low to high end. Personally i hope they try and keep it that way.
I do like the fact they add in options for high end PC users though.
jayskulls @ May 16th 2008 6:11PM
I think the lower spec graphics contributed greatly to WoWs success. Sure the graphics aren't up there with Age of Conan or whatever, but it's always been game really any rig can play. I have a lot of friends that play WoW simply because it's the only new game that their computers can actually run.
Jon Guinn @ May 16th 2008 6:13PM
As long as you can continue to play with the current setting, an update would be good for those who have systems that could handle it.
addon wow
ugg.tryptophan @ May 16th 2008 7:36PM
bad idea; improving graphics means increasing system requirements which means a large portion (millions), will have a different (slower), gameplay experiance, and that will slow their obscene torrent of cash; so at best, a minor upgrade in graphics would make sense