The limits of Video Mode Ultra
by Mike Schramm 
Apr 20th 2009 at 7:00PM
What's interesting is that I ran Wintergrasp a few times before having those slowdowns in Dalaran, and never had a problem. But then again, Blizzard did say that they had spent a lot of time making sure Wintergrasp was streamlined enough to run huge battles with minimal slowdown, so maybe Dalaran didn't get that same makeover. And I should say as well that I had no issues anywhere else in the world -- even my Naxx run the other evening looked perfect with Ultra flipped on.
Having a "future" graphics mode on PC games is nothing new -- for most games, the highest graphics setting is usually "experimental," so there's a little leeway in terms of release time (the game looks good with current hardware, but even better with next year's gear). And Video Mode Ultra is just that -- Blizzard trying to send a shot across the bow at those who are already saying the graphics look a little dated.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Fan stuff, Blizzard, Hardware
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Pyrostriker Apr 20th 2009 7:07PM
I wish my PC would run ultra...
nyctef Apr 20th 2009 7:32PM
I'm thinking of upgrading my system soon (Core 2 Duo/8400MGS), and the main slowdown seems to be other players - for example, on Maexxna I'll get slowdown (
nyctef Apr 20th 2009 7:34PM
Huh - my comment seems to have ended half way through.
contd:
nyctef Apr 20th 2009 7:35PM
what. Nvm, just delete these comments xD
Tomnationwide Apr 20th 2009 7:13PM
I play on a laptop and I have all settings maxed except shadows. I ran in ultra at first but the shadows did slow me down a tad so I lowered them.
Tridus Apr 20th 2009 7:08PM
The issue in Dalaran is that WoW is CPU bound. You can throw the best video hardware on the planet at it, and it won't get any faster.
The engine is designed to run well on lower end systems. It doesn't scale up to take full advantage of good video hardware. At the top end, it's actually very ineffecient compared to a high end engine.
Rugus Apr 20th 2009 7:09PM
Honestly... what does ULTRA add to the game? I notice little-to-zero difference. Chest gear is more detalied. That's all. Am I missing something?
Karilyn Apr 20th 2009 7:35PM
The change seems to vary wildly depending on the individual's graphics cards.
I've seen people take comparison screenshots, where there was a very very notable difference. And other people take comparison screenshots, where I couldn't tell the two photos apart.
If your computer doesn't seem to have much of a difference in Ultra mode, it's because your graphics card can't render the game in any quality higher than it already is.
Jorges Apr 20th 2009 8:14PM
I want to know this too. I have dual HD4850 1GB, 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo CPU and 4 GB of DDR800 RAM, and I'm pretty sure my computer can render the highest quality eye candy wow has to offer.
Besides half my FPS rate going down, I didn't notice any change. I have to mention that the big slowdown came from the extra notch in shadows. So i left shadows the same (old high quality) and pumped everything to max (i'm running a 1680x1050 res + 4FSAA in windowed mode) and everything is running smooth even on dalaran.
Narrven Apr 21st 2009 3:56AM
I think it increases character texture detail (which is nice, but only on the gear that has higher-detail textures), and environment shadow quality (players used high detail shadows on the previous highest setting, but environment shadows were lower detail).
I increased the texture detail setting, which doesn't have much effect on my FPS, but not the shadow setting, which kills it (8800GTS 512MB, Q6600 3GHz).
Rugus Apr 21st 2009 4:04AM
> The change seems to vary wildly depending
> on the individual's graphics cards.
Sorry to say that but the video card is not the problem: it's the 3D engine itself. WoW is a very very good game, maybe the best MMO ever. But when it comes to the graphics, is one of the worst (it was good years ago).
The ULTRA option does not add anything worth the name. Models are still the same low-poligonal objects and textures are still displayed in SUPER-low resolution (some exceptions occur, of course). The only noticeable thing (if you know that) is the chest gear piece.
ULTRA mode should mean you replace at least the low-res textures with something more defined. I really love this game but sometimes the environment reminds me the games of '90s.
rosencratz Apr 21st 2009 5:38AM
Rugus- You doth protest too much!
For the sake of everyone that plays wow and not jsut the super literally ultra folks it is a GOOD thing that WoW isn't udpated to the highest "ultra" standard.
In this contect "ultra" is a relative term and it should be really.
We already have a massive game with many gb's of game files, it's easily the biggest game on my hard drive these days. Ask me to download the game textures all over again so i can switch over to a higher res version if i want? Nice idea but totally insane.
The art of good game design on the PC has been and always will be in the optimisation and Blizzard manage it suprisingly well considering theirproduct and despite your complaints of it being dated it pulls off some very nice visuals in the game imo.
For them to live up to elitist attitudes towards graphics would disrupt everybodies gameplay. Low polygon models and low res textures are there for very very good reasons and to put even optional higher versions would cost us all much longer patch download times and even less hard drive space. Hardly worth the effort considering what Blizz can achieve with the tools at hand.
I sometimes find the way the shadows work a bit wierd though.
That said i've not seen too much difference since i set my graphics to Ultra and made sure everything was toggled on. I should do some comparison screenshots myself.
Rugus Apr 21st 2009 5:57AM
> Rugus- You doth protest too much!
I complain about the one thig WoW is really bad: visuals. Apart from specific areas/situations, the game is very very bad (graphically).
I've been power-leveling Herbalism and had to visit most of the old-Azeroth areas. Well let me say this: compared to Northerend, environments and details made me *puke*. It's ugly as hell.
Northerend is indeed rich in details and nice things but you have to start from level 1 and you wont see it until level 68.
Still, graphics stink in so many areas. Content and game design are superb maybe. But graphics not. At all.
rosencratz Apr 21st 2009 6:46AM
But as i say, comparitively, relatively or contextual, your complaints are a little too much.
The graphics are not top of the line now or even when it was released but for what it is? And for what you'd lose if they decided to rebuild it for the sake of making 1-60 look prettier?
Also isn't the aesthetic design of 1-60 zones less to do with the engine and more to do with design? Was your complaint with what they could do with the engine as a whole or what they got as a result? Is it simply on all the areas that pre-date all of the graphic engine updates that you have issue?
I understand complaints that not all things are perfect but that Blizzard are do graphics "bad" because they haven't wasted time upgrading the old world so it's as pretty as the newer frontiers? It seems like a short sighted view to me.
Wulfkin Apr 21st 2009 7:51AM
I've found that Ultra actually makes a pretty big difference to the game (2x GTX280's). Player characters are more detailed, spell details just seemed to become universally awesome (even humble things like summoning a mount get a lot shinier), the distance you can see got a lot further, and on the whole things just look that extra bit nicer. No its not ground breaking, certainly isnt as much of a gear up as, say, Everquest's graphic update in the Luclin expansion was, but it does make a shiny shiny difference. What are you complaining about?
Rugus Apr 21st 2009 7:53AM
> I understand complaints that not all things are perfect
Graphics in Wow are just old and -in many situations- ugly. By "ugly" I mean ultra-low detailed with textures that remind me the first games for PC back in 90' as I said before. In a MMO where both gameplay AND graphics are important, this is -for me- something bad. I still enjoy the game but time passes and the engine is showing its age.
Another ultra-ugly thing of the 3D engine is related to collisions. There are simply no collisions at all. Weapons, objects, wings, beasts, ... You fly on a dragon with open wings and wings cross the mountains. Last time I was flying from Crystalsong forest to Borean Tundra with an Arcane Missile behind me. He followed me ALL the time. More or less like when you move and get hit 20 yards before. I know its a client-server problem but it's annoying.
Considering we're in 2009 I am too much used to see "basic" stuff such as good shadowing, correct collisions, physics (simple or advanced in some games) and much more. I do not feel the need of fancy Directx10 idiot-stuff. I just miss "basic" stuff that still does not appear in WoW.
I do not say that WoW is bad and poorly done. It's a great game and I still play and pay my monthly fee. But the graphics and the simplistic implementation of many features are starting to annoy me.
> but that Blizzard are do graphics "bad" because they
> haven't wasted time upgrading the old world so it's as
> pretty as the newer frontiers?
New frontiers are a polished and "better organized" version of the old world. You still have ugly textures, no collisions, no physics and everything else. They are better thanks to a better design, of course.
> It seems like a short sighted view to me
Well I play since 2 years more or less. That means I like the game for what it offers. But if Blizzard will ever offer a new client with updated graphics and ask 50$ for it I would *IMMEDIATELY* pay and start a new toon just for the fun and pleasure of exploring the revamped areas.
I love both content AND graphics in a game. Someone would play WoW even in wireframe on a 12" screen. I do not, I want more (from graphics).
rosencratz Apr 21st 2009 9:07AM
"> It seems like a short sighted view to me
Well I play since 2 years more or less."
Well this sort of explains it a bit. and in no bad way, for i've played it for the 4 years.
Your complaints are totally fair enough and i know what you mean. I'm personally of the opinion that the graphics are, essentially and practically, just fine, which i think you believe too.
Whilst i don't see the point in upgrading wow graphically, i agree, that if a better looking version of wow existed i would also snap it right up. :) (Though i would sacrifice nought for it ;) )
Rugus Apr 21st 2009 9:29AM
> Your complaints are totally fair enough and i
> know what you mean. I'm personally of the opinion
> that the graphics are, essentially and practically,
> just fine, which i think you believe too.
Exactly. You can pass over the low-quality stuff thanks to the high-quality content/patches. But that does not mean "graphic quality is good". It's acceptable IF coupled with the good content.
> Whilst i don't see the point in upgrading wow
> graphically, i agree, that if a better looking version
> of wow existed i would also snap it right up. :)
I tested the swapping effect with EvE Online. They released a (free) high-end client with MUCH better models, textures and lighting. Let me say it's just *awesome*. Too bad I do not enjoy that much space environments. I need grass, trees and rabbits. And swords :D
Anehum Apr 20th 2009 7:10PM
My computer can run Ultra, but to be honest I don't see the difference. Maybe I have a fail eye for this but the only time I really have an appreciation for Ultra is in Ulduar. It's amazing in there, but for everyday running around and whatnot it's nothing special.
Arsenal Apr 20th 2009 8:09PM
No Offense, but a 9600GT isn't exactly high-end anymore, and Quad core won't really help you over dual core with WoW so 2.5Ghz is a bit on the slow side of high end as well (though i don't think the Ultra video setting has a lot to do with processing power).