Well as I mentioned in the other thread, before it was locked, I will reserve my final opinion on the visuals for later, like when we are closer to the actual release. I'll take your word for it on the shadowing though. I don't think my standards are particularly high. There is just a certain coloring though that I really dislike, like with the Borderlands' graphics.

It won't come down to the quality of animations... graphics don't decide the success/failure of a game.  Take a look at Dominions_3 which obviously has terrible graphics yet one of the most popular independent games and it's forums are still buzzing with activity unlike most TBS games.  Even Heroes_3 was so popular the community created an the unofficial WOG update despite the graphics being so ancient.  Even Master of Magic which is extremely old is still played by many on the forums using DosBox.   

Here's a list of features within Elemental more important than graphics:

  1} Game Stability

  2} Game Content

  3} Random Game Generator

  4} Map Editor

  5} Rich & Deep Campaign

  6} Game Balance

  7} Game Strategies

  8} Modding Capabilities

   Very true words from an experienced gamer.

I am assuming he means a campeighn with a ton of lore and lots of complex, interconnected missions.

Quoting kyogre12,
reply 4

Quoting Hortz, reply 2

It's not that it is just cartoonish, but that it's extremely minimalistic.

Because a game that could potentially have 32 players and hundreds, if not thousands of units should have graphics like Crysis, and should only be playable on computers that won't exist for another 3 years. Gee, that makes total sence. Oh, and that's sarcasm, by the way


How can anybody make such a dumb statement, Supreme Commander has hundreds of units, vastly superior graphics, each unit animated, simulated physics, seamless zoom, and all that in non-symbolic and in real time.

How many hundred times is that more than this game, and Supreme Commander will be 3 years older than this game when it comes out.

You should really think things through before spewing such blatant stupidity as some sort of argument.
[/quote]

I was looking at supreme Commander again the other day, actually despite it's supposedly good graphics I've always found it rather ugly. The ground textures are basic and simple, the models are extremely basic and it only looks good when zoomed out a long way.

I must have missed a post somewhere where someone said the game should have "graphics like Crysis".

I was exagerating when I said that because Hortz was saying that the graphics for Elemental were "minimalistic" and seems to be under the impression that Elemental should have hyper-realistic uber graphics that break most computers, a-la SupCom, Crysis, etc.

The most important qualities in any game to me are:

1. Plot
2. Gameplay
3. Graphics

Stability should be intrinsic for a game.

Define quality for those of us not in the field of software graphics. I mean, there are several games I enjoy that don't look very high tech in the graphics departnment to me. I know the FPS genre just adores graphics, but when you hit strategy games and small indie games like Fat Princess (not played just seen the videos and screenshots), World of Goo, Kudos the graphics are all over the place, so is the price tag. Even in mainstream titles like Mario Kart Wii, certainly isn't competing with huge, glitzy titles on the PS3 or 360, but I don't think I would enjoy the game if it did and certainly don't feel it's low quality either. Heroes of Might and Magic V supposedly had good graphics (based on opinionson the board), but I thought it played a little too "close" for my tastes in a strategy title... so that would make it what, high qulaity ineffective graphics (based on my opinion of course, just an example).

Well I responding to yours but it doesn't change the fact that high quality graphics is a term being used in this thread without actually being defined. I know what Zork was. It was a choose your own adventure book first wasn't it? You used the term high quality graphics, sarcasm or not, what did you mean by "high quality" graphics.

To be honest, I didn't really like the art-style when the first screenshots were released, but now that I have had the time to get used to it, and with the release of the newer screenshots, I'm really starting to like it a lot, it's an unique style. It might not be ultra realistic, but it is very clear and shows what needs to be shown.

And as has been said in this thread more than once, graphics ain't everything. The game must be fun, stable, fun immersive... did I mention fun?

The first beta will be only playable on the cloth map, and the goal is to make the game fun playing it that way without any detailed graphics, and I think that's the way it should be.

I've played Supreme Commander for a bit, but I didn't really like the gameplay, same with Crysis. So I think the whole 'Aaah, game will fail, graphics are bad!!!' thing is really an exaggeration...

I'm beginning to dislike some of the clothmap icons..... they don't really look like the rest of the map..... the lines are too thick, and the dark areas are too homogenous.....