What is Digg?131 Comments
- badken, on 10/12/2007, -20/+113Someday people will learn the difference between "dated" and "stylized".
The graphical look of WoW is completely intentional. - rick2k, on 10/12/2007, -19/+109too bad they make millions of $$$ because there not ***** who make games for people only with $2k rigs :)
- J6stik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+88http://duggmirror.com
Anyone else think that a duggmirror link should be provided by default with front page stories? - RandomSkratch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+54Don't those screenshots just have WoW pasted onto the monitors? The monitors themselves don't even look real either.
- ArcticCelt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+50Well everyone is a bit right here. It's true that Wow is "stylized" but they do it to compensate the lower graphic quality that they intentionally aimed so they can deliver a game to a large market of players and not only to spoiled kids or rich IT professionals. They could easily make a game with better graphics but then they would not have 5 million registered players who pay to play the game each month.
And I am not mankind this up but got it from an interview of one of the designers of the game. - jimi1337, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37If I worked for Matrox, and was responsible for designing a promotion such as this, I would simulate the screen images too. It's akin to using rubber cheese and Vaseline as grease in fast food menus. In fact, show me one company who takes photographs of their displays in operation and I'll show you a company who probably doesn't sell many monitors.
- simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Hot graphics don't make a game FUN.
- SushiK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26I have three screens going.
I used nVidea 5200 AGP and a 5200 PCI.
I don't play WoW, but most games will work if you put it into 'windowed mode.'
I say it will work, I say nothing about framerate... - folta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22yeah.
or if digg auto checks if the page is down. if its down it goes to duggmirror. - mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27I run it on my two screen setup and three screens would be killer... if Matrox had fast cards and decent Linux support.
- StaplesGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Firefox + GreaseMonkey + http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/5727 = Duggmirror Links on Homepage
- ShadowMagic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18i agree!
- Nodren, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20you can achieve triple monitor support with SLI and dual head cards, so technically it can be done with nvidia
- ziki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16mouse sensitivity = high?
- gaijintendo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I suspect the look has a lot to do with load times.. if you want smooth gameplay, you have to save on the detail.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -31/+43@badken: Very low polygon count, microscopic texture sizes, and lack of shadows or advanced lighting modes "intentional style"? Whatever floats your boat, dude, but personally I'd say rick2k was considerably closer to the truth. Or just compare the concept art to the game.
- TheGilmanator, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25Flagged as "lame" for lack of real screens. No digg.
- kingfoot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13they play it off as styleized, but no matter what, i love them. however if they offered a high rez version..id buy it in a heart beat. i like how GW looks.
- Wuss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I have 3 of these setups specifically for WoW, ( I own a LAN center), so 9 monitors across 3 computers. Video card being used is a Geforce7950 GX2 across 3-19" Acer 8ms LCD's.
The unit that allows you to do this is the Matrox TripleHead2Go. Runs roughly 250-300 per unit.
Max res is 3840x1024.
After all that, the opinion of someone who's had this setup for the past 4 months? Not worth it. The problem with running a massive horizontal resolution is that it limit's your vertical resolution. Specifically, WoW coupled with the Matrox software/hardware max's out at 3840 horizontal, but the correct vertical ratio for 3840 should be 3072. Obviously you do not have a 3072 vertical res., so basically what you're sacrificing for 3 times the horizontal view, is 2/3 of the vertical view.
And for those of you that play WoW, you can probably see how not being about to view what's in front of you (especially, 30-40 yds in front for you casters/hunters) basically renders the game unplayable.
BF2 is not supported. Day of Defeat is supported. Counterstrike is supported but bugged (crosshairs missing).
Also,for those of you graphic professionals who want this for a triple head setup, don't do it. The absence of DVI is painfully obvious when looking at the displays.
To bad i don't have any pics on hand. When we upgrade the machines in the near future, we're taking off the triplhead setup, and just going with a 24" LCD on the WoW machines. For now, the triple heads are being used to single screen wow, and thottbot on the other screens.
Btw, another old old old article/news on digg ftl. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12yeah, i don't know what people are actually digging here, i can put 3 monitors next to each other and photoshop world of warcraft on them too, does that mean i'll get front page?
- Promantarius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8If you do a search on google for "Warcraft behindthescenes.avi" you'll find a commentary from the artists about how and why they designed the game with the current artistic style. It's obviously much harder to design a world with varying polygon counts, even the current (in-game) dynamic polygon reduction system looks pretty weird when moving around quickly, imagine designing the same terrain several times to make sure it looked right on all systems.
I actually like the Warcraft style, it doesn't try to look photo realistic and makes a much more believable world because of it. How many MMORPGs try to make things look realistic and fail miserably? Take Vanguard for instance, everything looks glossy and plastic, if I didn't know better I'd think they were making an army men game. They tried realism and failed while Warcraft worked with their cartoon style and made a fairly believable world because of it. What would look stupider, an error in a Warcraft style world (say a hole in the world, or deformed terrain) or a world where the developers tried to make everything look real? People can deal with it in Warcraft and move on, in a more 'realistic' game it'd be glaringly obvious and break the atmosphere.
The developer team plans to upgrade the graphics engine at some point in time, but they don't know exactly when or to what end yet (they've mentioned this in several interviews, I believe Jeff Kaplan was the most recent one to note this.) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -40/+47Too bad WoWs graphics are so extremely dated. Shouldn't there be a WoW-II soon?
- neoian, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14He beat me to it so... I like PIE!
- mozzep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If guild wars is 2 years newer, then it should just be coming out right about now... considering WoW was released in November of 04.
- nzeeshan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6duggmirror worked for me .. nice !
- avester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6cool but hardly amazing or astounding
- modestmouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You know what I'd like to see spanned across three monitors?
LEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
JEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSS!!!! - kiwimonk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6WoW looks great.. Period.
- eim9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5How is this "Amazing"?
- mtgvault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's upsetting that people seem to think fancy pants graphics and 100 zillion poly models are the things that make a good game good. This goes for all games in all genres, not just WoW.
- rejectpenguin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I have this and it truly isn't that great. There are very few games that actually support true widescreen and if you are lucky enough to find one it is usually stretched on the side screens.
Even when the games arent stretched and everything is perfect you rarely find yourself looking over to the 2 side screensm as your main attention is on the center screen. The only real good purpose for this is not having to buy a new graphics card to have 3 monitors.
But for a price of $300 I probably would have taken the graphics card instead of the matrox triple head2go. - dSlifer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5A sequel?! Yea, Burning Crusade is coming out in January, that's as close as you're getting for awhile. Say, when's that Starcraft sequel coming out again....
I think they are decent graphics, and it is intentional. All of it, be it for the low-end machines, or for the fact that that's how Warcraft has always looked. WCIII could have looked a lot better, but they chose to go with the cartoonish look, it's how they've always wanted it. - antdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5How's the FPS with everything high in WoW and other games? I assume it's crappy?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You don't click on your hotkeys.. That's why they're bound to keys of the keyboard. The only clicking I do is to loot. And middle click to polymorph.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Remember the story a few months ago about a 24-screen quake 3 rig?
http://www.plastk.net/highres/24mon/
What the ***** is the deal with a 3 screen WoW thing? Boring boring boring!
Marked as lame! - halfway, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7You're right, they are dated. But they packed so much into the game, with such variety in environments, monsters, settings... that it makes up for it. There aren't many appearances you can choose from, but with all the items, people will look different when they are higher levels. I don't play this game right now, I did the 10 day trial, but I must say it was a nice game. Many other games look better than it, but not many can bring to the table so much while asking for so little (in terms of advanced computers).
- tidu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3you mean Amazing. it is the only word capitalized.
- coolbru, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't get why anyone gets excited about this. This has been possible for 20 years under Mac OS. I used to play F/A-18 on 3 monitors in 1993 (GraphSim removed the multi-screen support when they released it for Windows, go figure). What's more, it was never a problem running each monitor at different resolutions, colour depths or refresh rates. I used a Mac IIfx with six 21" monitors in 1992, which cost quite a bit back then.
- kingfoot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5warm homemade apple pie...mmmmmm
- robvstheworld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To use it properly you'd either need a really sensitive mouse or a really large desk and long arms :-)
- SushiK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Having a second monitor is great and helps productivity; a third is, in my experience, totaly worthless. I have never used my third monitor really. It just kind of sits there, blank. Oh, and I dare you to find some good wallpapers for three monitors. (I take the NASA pics and crop them to fit.)
Unless you have ridiculously wide spreadsheets, then it can be useful. - emorphien, on 10/12/2007, -21/+24i've always thought the same thing about the graphics in this game. They definitely are not high end.
- JesperL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yeah well I have a tri-force.
- emorphien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@mtgvault
It's upsetting that people seem to think fancy pants graphics and 100 zillion poly models are the things that should just be ignored because they aren't necessary. Or that people think discussion about a game looking dated means it bad.
Nobody is dissing WoW, it looks OK but certainly not astounding. That's it. End of discussion. There is nothing wrong with it, at the same time there would be nothing wrong with making it better.
You would make a great politician these days, your arguments make this sound like some sort of all or nothing discussion. - Spo8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes. It would be more astounding if it were porn.
- Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21024 is what sucks. that means you have to use 1280x1024 monitors
I would buy this if it supported 1200 vertical 4800 horrizontal then you could use 3 1600x1200 monitors - gerkin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, in 1993 under OS8/9. Today there is NOTHING that does that on OSX. having a 4 monitor setup I looked all over the place for some game that supported multi monitor, and found NONE. :(
Not sure what kind of performance you can expect from these things and also, they are NOT video cards, they are video splitters at best, which is going to take away from performance again. - SushiK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most games, especially FPSs have buried in the options .ini file a setting for field or angle of sight.
Changing this from the default (60 if my memory serves me right) to something higher (130 to 160 usually) gives the proper view.
One problem though is the far edges are always distorted and usually the HUD is stretched beyond recognition.
But it's a big help in counterstrike. - dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4http://www.plastk.net/highres/9mon/ Not the same game (Warcraft 2), but far far more impressive than a Photoshoped promotional image... (From the 25 monitor Quake 3 link)
- Ben - kiwimonk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why not get 4 of these, and have 9 monitors?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 130 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is