melwin said:
Comparing art by its creation dates may well be a contender for worst comparison ever.
After reading my post that's what you boiled it down to? Hmm, let me try this again.
First person perspective games are all based on a graphics engine. Said engines are a technology. Let's look at a popular series of games as an illustration. Doom 3's engine is an improvement over the Quake series, which looks better than the orignal Doom engine, which looks better than the Wolfenstein 3d engine. All are FPS games by id, and John Carmack wrote the engines for all of them.
Every generation they got better. This is not a question of artistic taste, it's a matter of evolution. You can plainly see the improvements over time. Wolf 3d is very blocky and I believe only supports 256 colors. Doom3 is a marvel that not even the current top-of-the-line machines can render at it's highest detail levels. As processors gained power and video cards improved, Mr. Carmack was able to get more and more agressive and take advantage of the hardware.
The Luclin models & engine are 3+ years newer than the original EQ ones. They have a higher polygon count and are just plain superior in visual quality. If you choose to view the models as art and judge them that way it's your perogative. But clearly the age of the original models does mean they are inferior to the Luclin ones because technology matures and improves over time. I judge them from that purely technical perspective.
Basically what you're saying is "Pac Man has better models than Doom 3, and the fact that Doom 3 is newer is irrelevant". It's an unsupportable position.
I brought up the 80s Conan movies because the special effects (most notably CGI) was quite primative or nonexistant at the time. Compared to what is available today and used by the creators of the LotR trilogy, Conan looks like a high school film class project. Again, this was a technological comparison and was not based on art.
