Why Does World of Warcraft get so much hate for its graphics?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Cali3350 (16130 posts) -

I happen to find it the most beautiful game currently on the market today. The perfect blend of technology and artstyle.

I dont wanna say "OMG YOUR GUYS ARE STUPID", i just wanna understand why some people think this game is ugly.

Pics:

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/underdev/images/kazzak.jpg

http://www.playerzblog.com/wp-content/illidan02.jpg

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/3105/kil2uc1.jpg

#2 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -
It's because Graphics > Gameplay.
#3 Posted by Arjdagr8 (3865 posts) -

i thought the art style was visually pleasing

#4 Posted by Sooshy (1723 posts) -
Technically, it's dated. It's still one of the most beautiful games out there, IMO, thanks to the great art style.
#5 Posted by Jandurin (95552 posts) -
No, it's the cartoony aspects. It's not bad cartoony, they just want, like, more blood and boobs, I guess? And maybe a darker atmosphere? >_> I really like the art style too.
#6 Posted by dbzfreak (6223 posts) -
I think people wanted a realistic setting and got the more "cartoony" setting. It's not bad, just some people just don't like that style, myself included. Does that make or break the entire game? No, just a personal taste preference for people.
#7 Posted by JLF1 (8263 posts) -
I have always liked the graphics in WoW.

The reason I hate the game is because it's not Warcraft 4.
#8 Posted by Sooshy (1723 posts) -
I think people wanted a realistic setting and got the more "cartoony" setting. It's not bad, just some people just don't like that style, myself included. Does that make or break the entire game? No, just a personal taste preference for people.dbzfreak
I don't understand why people every expected something different. The Warcraft franchise has always had that cartoony look.
#9 Posted by Jandurin (95552 posts) -
The Warcraft franchise has always had that cartoony look. Sooshy
Yep. It's the MMO crowd that were unfamiliarish with Warcraft that have a problem with the style, I bet.
#10 Posted by dbzfreak (6223 posts) -
[QUOTE="dbzfreak"]I think people wanted a realistic setting and got the more "cartoony" setting. It's not bad, just some people just don't like that style, myself included. Does that make or break the entire game? No, just a personal taste preference for people.Sooshy
I don't understand why people every expected something different. The Warcraft franchise has always had that cartoony look.

I think some people were hoping for graphics to have a closer resemblance to the cutscenes we see in Warcraft 3. They weren't very cartoony feeling. As I said before it's okay, just a personal preference, there is no right or wrong.
#11 Posted by PvtGump8 (739 posts) -

I like WoWs graphics. Gameplay > Graphics

#12 Posted by covhunter (946 posts) -
Because Age of Conan is out and people want to justify moving to another pay per month grindfest.
#13 Posted by fiscope (2426 posts) -

Even in motion this game looks terrible. Every area is bland, sterile, and compound that with the grinding and you get something that is boring and ugly. If the game had no fees, I could understand a little more. The visuals are purely functional, and for those of us who find the main game a little boring, this just puts the nail in the coffin.

Of course, if you find it boring anyway, then the game is not for you.

So the only people who really whine abou the visuals are people who probably didn't play it alot, or dont play it any more, like me.

#14 Posted by Senor_Kami (8439 posts) -

Its because bitter hermits always shout about how much better the PC is, how much better the graphics are and how having to pay for DLC/Online is so stupid and console owners are dumb.

Yet in 2008 the #1 most popular best selling PC game has PS2 quality graphics (with the #2 game, Sims, also having PS2 graphics). Forget buying DLC once or twice a year for $5 or $10, you have to pay $14 a month to even play it. $185 for your first year of playing the game. Thats 3 console games or close to 4 years of Live. This is what the PC wants to push gaming to... titles that cost $185 per year. And even after a year its not like you own it and its free, if you want to play for another year you have to pay another $185. Yet live is a bad deal @ $50 a year.

The hermits on this site have a major disconnect from the general PC gaming population.

#15 Posted by fiscope (2426 posts) -

Its because bitter hermits always shout about how much better the PC is, how much better the games are and how having to pay for DLC/Online is so stupid and console owners are dumb.

Yet in 2008 the #1 most popular best selling PC game has PS2 quality graphics (with the #2 game, Sims, also having PS2 graphics). Forget buying DLC once or twice a year for $5 or $10, you have to pay $14 a month to even play it. $185 for your first year of playing the game. Thats 3 console games or close to 4 years of Live. This is what the PC wants to push gaming to... titles that cost $185 per year. And even after a year its not like you own it and its free, if you want to play for another year you have to pay another $185. Yet live is a bad deal @ $50 a year.

Senor_Kami

Guild Wars has a massive following on the PC, and it has no monthly fees. So... whats your point? WoW is just one of many on the PC.