Blizzard's graphics.

Blizzard's graphics tend to be behind the curve.

I am curious to see what gamespotters think about Blizzard's visual capability.

Question 1: Is it because they simply can't hire or have decent programmers? Or something else?

Question 2: If they want to, can they surpass other developers? Like Crytek?

This is not a discussion regarding their art style; something which is Blizzard guys are often praised for.

This is about engine visual. (tech)

They want to make games that most people can run decently.

Its probably so everyone and their grandma can play.I mean they aren't all that demanding. So it increases their player base since almost anyone with a basic graphics card can play.

Ravenchrome, be careful here. This is an open invitation to some serious flaming

They have the money and tech to make the next generation graphics if they so wish to. Tbh they could throw so much money at it that it would make other devs cry. However why should they? They want their games to have a large player base. Therefor they use art styles / graphics that are easy and nice for the eye and hardly require any GPU.

And also the poll suck. its like:

"blizzard suck..." Blizzard suck" blizzard suck" :P

they definitely have the talent. just look at their cinematics and trailers. they just want to make the game playable on a wide range of computers.

they definitely have the talent. just look at their cinematics and trailers. they just want to make the game playable on a wide range of computers.

megatroneo

Their phylosophy has always been letting the most people have access to their games.

I like their games' graphics. WoW came out years ago and it still looks quite pretty to me.

Startcraft 2 is also a very nice-looking game.

Look at the in-engine stuff between the missions. Holy **** wow.

During missions, the animation is perfect and the physics aren't capped at 30 fps, like in DoW2.

The amount of care and detail more than makes up for the overall lack of fidelity. Just like in Rage...

The graphics work fine with this kind of games(RTS/RPG).

Seriously now with the new generation of gamers caring only about the graphics

and the developers listening only to their demands our favorite hobby is getting so 'cheap'.

Blizzard's iconic art style is cartoony and I can't say I like it too much. As the other guys said, they want thier games to be able to run on systems that are five years and older -- but would it be that difficult to have extra settings for hi-res textures and shaders? Though blizzard still needs to fix them in SCII, they don't seem to be optimized well. :(

I like the graphics in Blizzard games. Although i hope Diablo III will look a little better when it comes out. (but if i remember the first WoW screens correctly, i think we are safe)

But i also think Crytek has (technically) better graphics programmers.

Far Cry, Crysis are games beyond there time.

They like to make it so alot of peopel can play them... but they still dont look bad imo.

The graphics of Starcraft2 are fantastic. Sure not on the level of Crysis, ARMA2 or Metro but they still look good.

I have always felt (WOW excepted) tat Blizzard put gameplay ahead of graphics. They also have a sound business accumen in as far as making their games as accessable to the widest customer base possible. I have never owned an über-rig until recently, and have rarely, if ever had an issue playing any Blizzard game.

Could they put out something on the level of Crysis graphically? I've no doubt in mind they could, but why would they want to restrict themselves by producing a product with a limited client base? I mean really, who could play Crysis maxed out when it first arrived? Blizzard have never had that issue I can assure you.

Blizzard's visual capability is exactly where it needs to be.

Ya they want to sell alot of copies, Im not sure I like the new artstyle for SC2 just yet; I miss the grittyness from SC1.

I think Blizzard smart in the way they design their games around whole scale of different settings cause then most can run it. I'll agree might not be the most eye candy but long as the game is enjoyable it fine for me.

Also if you look at other Blizzard titles eg WC3 they pushed the GFX harder than SC2 for the time. SC2 seems a little too safe in terms of GFX but Blizzard new they didnt need great gfx to sell.

They want to make games that will run well. Outside of emulation, Blizzard's games are the only ones that will run consistantly on my rig long after other oldish games have decided they are incompatible. I'm not a fanboy, btw. I just really appreciate how I can play the same game with friends who use netbooks and they have the same performance.

And the cartoony art style ages well (though I'm not liking it in D3. Looks like HD Torchlight).

Even if developers like Crytek or id make technically superior graphics, Blizzard's scalable graphics allow Blizzard to reach a wide variety of gamers on various computers.the_ChEeSe_mAn2

Plus Crytek makes FPS games. Blizzard is in the MMORPG & Strategy realm so it's hard to compare one style of games graphics to a completely different kind of game.

I've always liked what Blizzard does the looks of their games.

quite honestly, I respect blizzard for this single fact alone (well, in addition to making good games with excellent support and communities).

They realize that the higher your requirements go, the less people can play them.

YET...with a product made by Blizzard, EVERYONE wants to play them so they lower the requirements. They would pretty much be shooting themselves in the foot if they decided to up their visuals to cutting edge, easily cuttung their sales down 20-40% (just guessing).

They realize that, deep down, pretty much all gamers want *gasp* GAMEPLAY in their games.

quite honestly, I respect blizzard for this single fact alone (well, in addition to making good games with excellent support and communities).

They realize that the higher your requirements go, the less people can play them.

YET...with a product made by Blizzard, EVERYONE wants to play them so they lower the requirements. They would pretty much be shooting themselves in the foot if they decided to up their visuals to cutting edge, easily cuttung their sales down 20-40% (just guessing).

They realize that, deep down, pretty much all gamers want *gasp* GAMEPLAY in their games.

mrbojangles25

So you can't have cake and eat it too? The gameplay is going to be the same so what is there to miss? Work on the graphics or at least add the option for bedazzlement on the screen.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

quite honestly, I respect blizzard for this single fact alone (well, in addition to making good games with excellent support and communities).

They realize that the higher your requirements go, the less people can play them.

YET...with a product made by Blizzard, EVERYONE wants to play them so they lower the requirements. They would pretty much be shooting themselves in the foot if they decided to up their visuals to cutting edge, easily cuttung their sales down 20-40% (just guessing).

They realize that, deep down, pretty much all gamers want *gasp* GAMEPLAY in their games.

Sheppard212

So you can't have cake and eat it too? The gameplay is going to be the same so what is there to miss? Work on the graphics or at least add the option for bedazzlement on the screen.

If I had the option of playing an online-centric game with a large community and rock solid gameplay

or the option of playing an online-centric game with small community and ok gameplay (that was obviously neglected for more technical reasons, i.e. cool physics, neat lighting, etc)

I am going to take the former.

Its not so much about having your cake and eating it to.

Its more like getting a really good pizza with only two toppings, as opposed to a mediocre pizza with three toppings. Mmmm food analogies glglglglglgl

What about armor and item models are recycled in WoW they dont have money to pay designers? or they are too lazy?

What about armor and item models are recycled in WoW they dont have money to pay designers? or they are too lazy?

sozar

This poll is obvoiusly nonsense, every option is going against Blizzard's real intention. Blizzard has always been about having an art style first and foremost. Which is a breath of fresh air for me. I'm sick of developers who implement the latest new cool Tech Effect just because its new, and in effect they then end up with a lacking consistency in their game's art style as a whole.

Blizzard's graphics tend to be behind the curve.

I am curious to see what gamespotters think about Blizzard's visual capability.

Question 1: Is it because they simply can't hire or have decent programmers? Or something else?

Question 2: If they want to, can they surpass other developers? Like Crytek?

This is not a discussion regarding their art style; something which is Blizzard guys are often praised for.

This is about engine visual. (tech)

Ravenchrome

quite honestly, I respect blizzard for this single fact alone (well, in addition to making good games with excellent support and communities).

They realize that the higher your requirements go, the less people can play them.

YET...with a product made by Blizzard, EVERYONE wants to play them so they lower the requirements. They would pretty much be shooting themselves in the foot if they decided to up their visuals to cutting edge, easily cuttung their sales down 20-40% (just guessing).

They realize that, deep down, pretty much all gamers want *gasp* GAMEPLAY in their games.

mrbojangles25

Lets be honest though; if this wasnt a Blizzard game people would simply not buy it because of the GFX. The people with the uber comps would pass it up because its below the industry standard, and the people with the bad pcs would probably not even give it the time of day because they are used to their console gaming and games they have heard of. While SC2 is a good game, no other company other than blizzard can get away with releasing a game thats doesnt have cutting edge GFX. SC2 is known for its competiive play, most people dont care about how the units look like as long as the game is balanced.

part of it is because they want to make their games compatible on many computers. but also they take too long to develop their games. Technology moves fast and they move slow. So what happens is they start with certain tech which is strong at the time, and they spend 6 or whatever years on a game and their technology becomes old. They can update it but it's costly.

look at Diablo 2 and it was the same thing. 2d pixel game in 3d generation. What is the excuse for that? it did not cost consumer much to run 3d games in that era. they were just too slow with developing.

I have been a fan of blizz's games since I can remember and not once have I bought one of their games thinking omg this is a graphical power house. I care about the content more than the graphics and honestly I don't have any issues with their graphics.

I don't understand why people think Blizzard games have bad graphics. Starcraft 2 is great and anybody can run it. Sure DoW 2 has great graphics but it leads in a lag fest for 3v3 games and most Last Stand games. WoW is 6 years old now and can run on any machine.

I don't consider them to behind at all. They seem to only adopt proven technology, and they make really great use of it while still making an effort to make their games playable on a wide range of systems. This seems to be a hallmark of really, really great PC devolopers - just look at Valve.

Blizzard does what every developer should do:

1) Make a game that is fun to play

2) Make acceptable graphics

Other developers do:

1) Make a beautiful game

2) Make the beautiful game boring

Blizzard's graphics tend to be behind the curve.

I am curious to see what gamespotters think about Blizzard's visual capability.

Question 1: Is it because they simply can't hire or have decent programmers? Or something else?

Question 2: If they want to, can they surpass other developers? Like Crytek?

This is not a discussion regarding their art style; something which is Blizzard guys are often praised for.

This is about engine visual. (tech)

Ravenchrome

Simple marketing tactic. Making a game accessable to the widest range of customers for maximum profit. That being said, I don't think the poll is phrased fairly. Their graphics may not being cutting edge, but Blizzard has a proven and time tested reputation for excellent gameplay. Graphics are always secondary to any serious gamer anyhow.

Blizzard does what every developer should do:

1) Make a game that is fun to play

2) Make acceptable graphics

Other developers do:

1) Make a beautiful game

2) Make the beautiful game boring

Lox_Cropek

I'd hate to be literal with your marginally fanboyish statement, but Blizzard isn't the only good developer. I'm glad Diablo 2 is at least better looking than Warcraft 3, but good visuals with solid gameplay and superior writing complementing an acceptable story is what makes a game fantastic. Quite a few folks here are saying "Gameplay or graphics, you can't have both!", but I'd have to disagree strongly with this rather ignorant idea.

I can see why GCS Game World, the creators of STALKER, don't have the best visuals in their games, it because they're an Eastern European studio working with ten million spread across three games. But with Blizzard, they're rolling in quite a bit of dough, especially with their recent successes. I don't see why adding in some advanced shaders as optional features is so bad. They can do it in DX9, not DX10 or 11, and it'll turn out pretty well --b ut if they add in DX10 support (gaming standard), then you're in for quite a ride.

I'll join the huge masses and say that its easily the first option in that poll. If the cutscenes of Starcraft 2 are anything to go by.... they definitely could have upped the graphics to an even greater detailed level if they wanted to but as we all know... they very well did not for what appears to be fairly legitimate reasons. I'm just glad that all though they do make the graphical compromise they still do at least try to go for some artistic form so as to not make it completely unappealing.

Aside from the fact that Blizzard isn't really changing their engine for WoW at the moment is for the scalability of the game on different systems, but also note, that in the Cataclysm Beta, they are experimenting with DirectX11... maybe they'll add that in with effects such as the bricks on the walls and other stuff, like the DX11 Unigine demo. For the moment, they only tweaked the water for DX11.

I'm not sure really. For WoW's sake, they're really sup-bar. Starcraft 2 gameplay graphics are average or a little better, and the cinematics on the other hand are the best graphics I've ever seen!

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

quite honestly, I respect blizzard for this single fact alone (well, in addition to making good games with excellent support and communities).

They realize that the higher your requirements go, the less people can play them.

YET...with a product made by Blizzard, EVERYONE wants to play them so they lower the requirements. They would pretty much be shooting themselves in the foot if they decided to up their visuals to cutting edge, easily cuttung their sales down 20-40% (just guessing).

They realize that, deep down, pretty much all gamers want *gasp* GAMEPLAY in their games.

NanoMan88

Lets be honest though; if this wasnt a Blizzard game people would simply not buy it because of the GFX. The people with the uber comps would pass it up because its below the industry standard, and the people with the bad pcs would probably not even give it the time of day because they are used to their console gaming and games they have heard of. While SC2 is a good game, no other company other than blizzard can get away with releasing a game thats doesnt have cutting edge GFX. SC2 is known for its competiive play, most people dont care about how the units look like as long as the game is balanced.

Last time I checked Halflife 2 and Torchlight were not cutting edge in the slightest (when released)and people gobbled them up like they were Lay's (betcha cant eat just one!). Same with titles such as World of Goo and such.

While humanity in general (aka, the people duped by the media and press releases) might lead us to believe that the games with the greatest technical achievements are king, people (indivuduals or close-knit groups) know in their hearts that gameplay is king.

Its why Diablo 2 is still alive and well. It's why Counterstrike is over a decade old and arguably one of the most prosperous online shooters. It's why people are fanatically loyal to the Command and Conquer franchise.

I do agree, however, that some people (honestly, how many people have 3000+ dollar rigs out there) will refuse to play it due to being prostitutes to the graphics, but imo they are not even worth considering, both financially and ethically.

Blizzard does what every developer should do:

1) Make a game that is fun to play

2) Make acceptable graphics

Other developers do:

1) Make a beautiful game

2) Make the beautiful game boring

Lox_Cropek

that is a gross generalization and for the most part untrue.

Crysis was the most enjoyable shooter I have played in a long, long time. When people slight a shooter for having a bad story, or for not being sandbox, you know theyre grasping at straws. People have sung praise for Metro's incredible immersion and scare tactics, despite its insane requirements.

But I digress, the last thing I want is for this thread to turn into the ever-present Crysis-Gameplay debate.