PDA

View Full Version : The graphics for Origins are quite bad



AnimusLover
07-05-2017, 08:47 PM
I want to make it clear that, aesthetically, Ubisoft has never made an ugly looking Assassin's Creed game, apart from Assassin's Creed 3.
But graphically the series is all over the place and, historically speaking, the more graphically impressive the less well it runs.
Unity is perhaps the prime example of this. Whether the city of Paris is pretty or not is down to preference but graphically it's unmatched,
both in character models and the world. Assassin's Creed 3 was graphically superior to Black Flag as well.
Origins looks too cartoonish, it doesn't have the grain and grit that Unity had. The only thing that looks impressive is the water.
The facial models are on par with Assassin's Creed 3 which was LAST gen.
I feel like if they spent more time on it they could get it up to Unity's level. Witcher 3 (yes I will bring up that game because it's what Origins wants to be)
had way better graphics than this and was far more ambitious. Even Horizon Zero Dawn is more advanced.
It's even stranger when you consider a game like Far Cry 5 which has awesome graphics yet is made by the same developer (albeit a different team)
Am I the only one who notices this?

RVSage
07-05-2017, 09:05 PM
I disagree, it looks as good as Unity in many ways, and I feel the water simulation in the game is the best I have ever seen. Texture work, cloth works in many places were great, I really feel this is way better than what syndicate had, and I also feel it is slightly better than witcher 3 on consoles.

And also we have not yet, seen the PC version of Origins, AC Unity and Witcher 3 were much better on PC

crusader_prophet
07-05-2017, 09:15 PM
It is difficult to create a seamless loading-free vast open world with the best graphics. Witcher 3 had different locations, so even though it was graphically demanding it didn't have to deal with an open world like origins or HZD. HZD has impressive graphics but it's world isn't as dynamic as Origins where NPCs are supposed to have their own routine which is far more demanding than just some robots and NPCs walking around in a defined path. So they have to cut down somewhere to be able to run the game in current gen (not refering to PC). If the facial animations are good enough and not a disaster, I think it's enough if they can make it up in other areas that are more important.


I disagree, it looks as good as Unity in many ways, and I feel the water simulation in the game is the best I have ever seen. Texture work, cloth works in many places were great, I really feel this is way better than what syndicate had, and I also feel it is slightly better than witcher 3 on consoles.

And also we have not yet, seen the PC version of Origins, AC Unity and Witcher 3 were much better on PC

Unity was one of the most demanding games in the entire series considering it had explorable interiors and far more NPCs than ever in an AC game. So even if the water and texture look vastly improved in Origins, don't discount the other factors going into it such as more programming involved in creating NPC schedules within a loaded environment. The animations actually do look cartoonish in compariosn to Unity, and that is okay because there are other important aspects of the game that needs to be supreme. And Syndicate was a downgraded version of Unity (even UbiSoft said that), so comparing to Syndicate isn't really fair even though it came later than Unity.

RVSage
07-05-2017, 09:30 PM
Unity was one of the most demanding games in the entire series considering it had explorable interiors and far more NPCs than ever in an AC game. So even if the water and texture look vastly improved in Origins, don't discount the other factors going into it such as more programming involved in creating NPC schedules within a loaded environment. The animations actually do look cartoonish in compariosn to Unity, and that is okay because there are other important aspects of the game that needs to be supreme. And Syndicate was a downgraded version of Unity (even UbiSoft said that), so comparing to Syndicate isn't really fair even though it came later than Unity.

Very true, Unity was really demanding, not just because of the explorable interiors, because of the huge crowds, that is what caused many performance issues, coupled with the baked global illumination.

Regarding the animations, I guess Unity went for animated assisted combat system , the game makes up the distance in a fight with animations

Where as in origins, the animations and combat is decoupled from each other. They are different. I do agree there is scope for animation improvement in combat. Ashraf too acknowledged it was part of the feedback they received at E3, so let us wait and see

cawatrooper9
07-05-2017, 10:27 PM
I think that graphically the game is fine. If anything, movement (in and out of combat) might need some tightening up, but that may also be because we're not used to an AC without animated combat yet.

Megas_Doux
07-06-2017, 12:49 AM
Origins is definitely not the best looking open world game but I think is far from being bad. In fact I really like it.


I want to make it clear that, aesthetically, Ubisoft has never made an ugly looking Assassin's Creed game, apart from Assassin's Creed 3.
But graphically

I play on PC here and I disagree about AC III being the ugliest because AC III was not ugly to begin and mostly due to the fact that title belongs to AC II.....

Yes I said it!!!! AC II is the worst looking game in the franchise at the time of its release with the exception of Rogue. Shadows pop up all over the place, face models look like 2005, lightning is not particularly good, environments are kinda sup-bar as well... I just cannot bring myself to play that game without ENB of Sweet fx.

crusader_prophet
07-06-2017, 03:51 AM
Yes I said it!!!! AC II is the worst looking game in the franchise at the time of its release

That's it. We are taking you to the guillotine for blasphemy.

P.S. I agree with you, AC 1 was much better looking than AC2 and ACB in terms of aesthetics, in my humble opinion.

pirate1802
07-06-2017, 05:55 AM
Yes I said it!!!! AC II is the worst looking game in the franchise at the time of its release with the exception of Rogue. Shadows pop up all over the place, face models look like 2005, lightning is not particularly good, environments are kinda sup-bar as well... I just cannot bring myself to play that game without ENB of Sweet fx.



That's it. We are taking you to the guillotine for blasphemy.

P.S. I agree with you, AC 1 was much better looking than AC2 and ACB in terms of aesthetics, in my humble opinion.

Agreed with both of you. AC2 and Rogue are in my opinion, the worst looking ACs.

Also I disagree with the notion that ACIV had worse environmental graphics than ACIII. I think we can all agree that IV had worse character models than III but environments? Come on, dynamic foliage, god rays, volumetric fog.. there are so many things that AC IV had that AC III didn't. Try playing AC III after witnessing the glory of an AC IV thunderstorm and tell me that dead foliage looks better.

joelsantos24
07-06-2017, 09:39 AM
Agreed with both of you. AC2 and Rogue are in my opinion, the worst looking ACs.

Also I disagree with the notion that ACIV had worse environmental graphics than ACIII. I think we can all agree that IV had worse character models than III but environments? Come on, dynamic foliage, god rays, volumetric fog.. there are so many things that AC IV had that AC III didn't. Try playing AC III after witnessing the glory of an AC IV thunderstorm and tell me that dead foliage looks better.
I think that's one of the most significant problems with Ubisoft and the AC series, you simply can't perceive a developing or clearly evolving line throughout the different chapters. AC3 had better character models than Black Flag, but the latter had much better environments, and so on. The development they accomplish in one game is almost downgraded in the next, because they need to compromise, in order to do something else on a different area of the game. It's like they lack the ability to progress sustainably, as they keep building around the precedent development instead of on it.

ajl992015
07-06-2017, 12:17 PM
I think the graphics are fantastic, some of the vistas are mindblowing. One thing I really think is an issue though is the facial animations. They look really stiff and even last gen games such as ac3/4 looked better imo. That is the only thing I think they need to work on. I am excited from what I have seen. All I need now to be happy is literally for them to improve the facial animations and give us a proper modern day story. Otherwise I am more than satisfied already.

SixKeys
07-06-2017, 04:54 PM
I'm probably the most vocal AC3 critic on these forums, but claiming it's an ugly game? You must be trippin'. If there's one thing that game did right, it's the graphics.

As for ACO, keep in mind that the demos we've seen were alpha footage.

cawatrooper9
07-06-2017, 05:05 PM
I'm probably the most vocal AC3 critic on these forums, but claiming it's an ugly game? You must be trippin'. If there's one thing that game did right, it's the graphics.

As for ACO, keep in mind that the demos we've seen were alpha footage.

I almost said the same thing, but I think OP meant something more along the lines of it being a graphical achievement with a rather drab setting. Which I half agree with. Sometimes the towns could be a little dreary, but there were also some really amazing environments, too.

SixKeys
07-06-2017, 06:03 PM
I almost said the same thing, but I think OP meant something more along the lines of it being a graphical achievement with a rather drab setting. Which I half agree with. Sometimes the towns could be a little dreary, but there were also some really amazing environments, too.

Even if that was the case, calling the environments "ugly" is a severe exaggeration. The worst that can be said about the setting is that it was visually boring, not because of the artistry but because of historical accuracy. Streets were wider, there was a lot of untamed land and tons of empty space back then. When I think of "ugly" I think bad textures, bad draw distance, bad models etc. AC2 is easily the ugliest of the games.

cawatrooper9
07-06-2017, 07:17 PM
Even if that was the case, calling the environments "ugly" is a severe exaggeration. The worst that can be said about the setting is that it was visually boring, not because of the artistry but because of historical accuracy. Streets were wider, there was a lot of untamed land and tons of empty space back then. When I think of "ugly" I think bad textures, bad draw distance, bad models etc. AC2 is easily the ugliest of the games.

I'm glad people are finally coming around to that. I've thought it looked... cartooney, for a long time.

But yeah, I think it was just a poor choice of words.

Fauux01
07-06-2017, 08:40 PM
I think that's one of the most significant problems with Ubisoft and the AC series, you simply can't perceive a developing or clearly evolving line throughout the different chapters. AC3 had better character models than Black Flag, but the latter had much better environments, and so on. The development they accomplish in one game is almost downgraded in the next, because they need to compromise, in order to do something else on a different area of the game. It's like they lack the ability to progress sustainably, as they keep building around the precedent development instead of on it.

It's also important to understand their limitations, which are the platforms they are developing these games for. AC3 had better character models (and buildings, ships, and other urban assets) but it ran very poorly on last-gen consoles. There was no AA and the frame rate was terrible. Black Flag found a nice middle ground and ran a bit smoother on last-gen, while also maintaining consistent fps on current-gen. Unity was way too ambitious, even for most PCs, and so it ran very poorly on current-gen consoles, even at 900p, a sub-standard resolution. Syndicate regressed many things, most notably the lighting and character models, but it improved the performance on current-gen consoles and gave more leeway for better optimization for low/mid-tier PCs , which is the most important thing. Of course, optimization and budget has to do with it as well, but the series have definitely hit its peak in terms of visuals already, at least until next-gen.

I'm perfectly happy with Origins visuals, because 1. it still looks great 2. it means there's a chance they're focused more on sustaining good performance, which seems to be the trend with current Ubisoft titles, such as The Division, Wildlands, Watch Dogs 2, For Honor and Steep.

Abelzorus-Prime
07-06-2017, 11:10 PM
Even if that was the case, calling the environments "ugly" is a severe exaggeration. The worst that can be said about the setting is that it was visually boring, not because of the artistry but because of historical accuracy. Streets were wider, there was a lot of untamed land and tons of empty space back then. When I think of "ugly" I think bad textures, bad draw distance, bad models etc. AC2 is easily the ugliest of the games.

It's not an exaggeration if that's his opinion. I think he is trying to make a distinction of what is aesthetically pleasing which is very subjective to what is graphically superior which was what you mentioned when you said bad textures, bad draw distance, bad models etc. AC2 is easily the ugliest of the games.

joshoolhorst
07-09-2017, 07:29 PM
I want to make it clear that, aesthetically, Ubisoft has never made an ugly looking Assassin's Creed game, apart from Assassin's Creed 3.
But graphically the series is all over the place and, historically speaking, the more graphically impressive the less well it runs.
Unity is perhaps the prime example of this. Whether the city of Paris is pretty or not is down to preference but graphically it's unmatched,
both in character models and the world. Assassin's Creed 3 was graphically superior to Black Flag as well.

AC3 ugly wtf? Syndicate is the worst looking AC game in the franchise. But I can kinda (hardly just so ugly) forgive that because I am pretty sure that Ubisoft wanted that game to function when it got released.
And Assassin's Creed 2 and AC4 PS3/360 version.
I love how Origins looks my only actual complain really when I see characters walking around is the animation but it is good enough.

AnimusLover
07-09-2017, 07:50 PM
I almost said the same thing, but I think OP meant something more along the lines of it being a graphical achievement with a rather drab setting. Which I half agree with. Sometimes the towns could be a little dreary, but there were also some really amazing environments, too.

Basically, this.


I'm probably the most vocal AC3 critic on these forums, but claiming it's an ugly game? You must be trippin'. If there's one thing that game did right, it's the graphics.

As for ACO, keep in mind that the demos we've seen were alpha footage.

I said specifically that graphically it's one of the best in the franchise but aesthetically I am not keen on it. I'm not keen on the art design as it's bland, brown and drab. Historically speaking, there are virtually no stand out landmarks so it's not visually interesting either.

WendysBrioche
07-14-2017, 07:06 AM
mmmm....

I have to disagree with most points.

Black Flag was far superior in graphics to AC III, at least on the PC which I've played on since AC 4. The water, the vegetation, lighting, textures far more detailed and more objects in the environment. Black Flag was absolutely beautiful.

No way do the facial models in Origins look anywheres near as low detail as AC III, they're just about on par with Unity in that regard.

On Witcher 3, my personal opinion it doesn't look as good. Cities were small, npc count far lower than typical AC games, and the largest city in that game, the one with the castle, forgot the names, but the buildings there were far less detailed than what we've gotten from Unity or Syndicate. You don't notice it there cause you never climb the rooftops to see them up close. Plus the ground textures are flat and unimpressive without mods.

Origins has plenty of uneven and geometric terrain, with detail put into individual 3d rock assets on a scale which hasn't been done yet for AC, and hardly any game except for maybe DICE games, but AC is an open world, which makes the fact they can still pull stuff like that off much more impressive.

Plus the lighting effects, water refraction, I honestly can't agree with the argument that this game has bad graphics at all. It's soo beautiful, and not just artistically impressive but on a technological level as well.

This game is a feat in terms of graphics, absolutely stunning. I mean if you don't like this I hardly can understand how with that kind of taste anyone could appreciate any game for that matter, but to each their own.

Idk, I can't help but fanboy over this game, it looks so great to me. The color schemes are even better than I've seen so far in AC, which I never believe is possible coming off previous AC games and with most of the titles has always proved me wrong.



That's it. We are taking you to the guillotine for blasphemy.

P.S. I agree with you, AC 1 was much better looking than AC2 and ACB in terms of aesthetics, in my humble opinion.

Bahaha, this takes me back. XD

I was among the people back in those days who thought AC II looked like crap.

The problem AC II had was it used this finicky lighting effect that didn't look the same to everyone. It had a wierd shadow effect around the corners of character models.

When people like me originally saw it, it looked like everything on the npcs from clothing to shoes to faces and skin was made out of ribbons like this:

https://www.the-beadshop.co.uk/images/15mm-satin-ribbon-dark-red-22m-roll-p14852-22489_thumb.jpg

http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/406083-assassin-s-creed-ii-playstation-3-screenshot-ah-florence-looks.jpg

So if you notice around the characters, they tend to outline aorund the corners with a shaded area, that shadow effect made the npcs look like ribbons and glitter to people who didn't percieve it right, but for the people who were able to visually interpret the effect as it was intended, that same lighting effect had an enhancing affect that made the npcs look so much more lifelike, and added detail to the textures somehow.

For people who didn't visually interpret it the way it was meant to be, it obscured the textures and made them look more smudgy than if they were not to use the effect at all.

I know this because I've seen it both ways, and if you've never seen the whole optical ililusion thing, you'll just have to trust me it is in fact there. Ubisoft didn't invest all the money back then to intentionally make all the npcs in AC II look like ribbons and glitter cartoons. The way it was intended to appear, it does look very comparable and better in 50% of ways than AC I. :)

My main complaint with AC II was that they scrapped fabric physics for more detail in the buildings back then, which worked out for the buildings but was drab for Ezio's robes.

That said, if you like AC enough and have time for old games, I encourage you to play II again a little if you might be able to see the effect without going insane like I did. The shadowed area is actually just shading, not ribbon glitter reflection, try looking at it as flat shadow. Most of npc clothing textures are supposed to appear flat, not glossy glittery. But if you just go crazy looking at it, don't bother yourself so much lol. ;)

On AC III, for me it was a mixture of some amazing some bad. Connor's robes were super graphically impressive, with a return of fabric physics for the first time since AC I and the best animations in the series up until that point.

Lighting was good, rain was amazing, but a few things were rather low detail compared to previous installments like a lack of geometric tiling on the roofs of buildings in favor of flat roofs, some of the rocks were a bit low poly, some of the pine trees and shrubbery were pretty lame in the frontier. But most of that was technical limitations of making vast and huge multi tree and heavily vegetated open world forests on 360 ps3 generation tech. Most other games that had those kinds of forests had the same limitations, including titles like Skyrim.

pacmanate
07-15-2017, 08:29 PM
You need to watch some 4K footage, it looks amazing.

Problem with a lot of youtube uploads is the encoding completely screws up the details in... everything. Most likely due to the colour pallet.

rawr012
07-16-2017, 11:41 AM
I do agree that Origins looks more cartoonish and less gritty than Unity and other AC games. I hated when GTA V came out and looked like the Sims compared to the gritty GTA IV. I think part of it is because of the brighter, more colourful settings and also because develepors get lazy with graphics as they are trying to build on other aspects of the game and improve from the last game. In GTA V it was the GTA:Online which made the story much shorter than usual and graphics cartoonish. In Origins case the graphics aren't as good because imo Ubisoft spent most of their time on the huge RPG Skyrim-like map (and story hopefully.)

Green_Reaper
07-18-2017, 12:11 AM
It actually looks amazing, I think you're not used to the look of it because the setting is completely different.

AnimusLover
07-18-2017, 06:20 PM
It actually looks amazing, I think you're not used to the look of it because the setting is completely different.

I pumped in over 60 hours in Horizon Zero Dawn. I've played Uncharted 4, Witcher 3 Heart of Stone and The Phantom Pain. Not only am I used to the sands and greeny setting, I'm SPOILED on it. Hence why Origins simply does not compare.

RinoTheBouncer
07-18-2017, 11:21 PM
I think the graphics will improve much more upon release, and they've been doing that strategy with Syndicate as well. With Unity, they made that teaser which was gameplay graphics that looks a lot like CGI and gradually, people thought the game was being downgraded, even though the final product is still the best looking AC to date. But with Syndicate, the first demos and trailers were much lower in quality in comparison to the final product. Hell, even some trailers showed some characters' beards looking quite unfinished while later they were altered to look better.

Megas_Doux
07-19-2017, 03:11 AM
I pumped in over 60 hours in Horizon Zero Dawn. I've played Uncharted 4, Witcher 3 Heart of Stone and The Phantom Pain. Not only am I used to the sands and greeny setting, I'm SPOILED on it. Hence why Origins simply does not compare.

I disagree!

Being aware of the fact Origins has yet to be released and not ignoring Ubi doesn't have the best record in regards of graphics before announcements vs the final product....I have to say that out of those games two are exclusives -Horizon and Uncharted- a factor that SHOULDN'T be ignored and the latter one is a linear game so it doesn't even have to be compared in the first place.

Now, The other two???

Again, I have yet to play the final version of Origins and the further comment is about the "platform" in which I play -Pc- but The Witcher at release and PRIOR both the official and fan made modes had big downgrade and looked NOTHING like the 2014 e3 demo and let alone the legendary 2013 showcase video... Controversy that ended up being some sort of forgotten and forgiven with the exception of some PC uber elitists because a) The game is superb in every sense of the word b) How huge and diverse the world is c) It ran without any problems d) How open CD Projekt Red concerning modes e) Ubisoft's more frequent shenanigans in that regard to name a company famous for it. Oh and don't get me started about The Witcher 3 in consoles.....

Last but least: Metal gear V. Now we are talking about two games that can be fairly compared. Based on what I have seen about Origins so far it has better lighting, a bigger -apparently- and more diverse world -the phantom is rather samey- and superior textures. MGSV takes the lead in the draw distance department and in game models. Overall and as of now, I say that Origins looks better than The Phantom Pain to me.

We have to wait, though.

WendysBrioche
07-19-2017, 10:15 AM
You need to watch some 4K footage, it looks amazing.

Problem with a lot of youtube uploads is the encoding completely screws up the details in... everything. Most likely due to the colour pallet.

Ya, this for sure.

Youtube videos NEVER compare to real time gameplay in 4k.

The difference between even the best 4k video uploads and actual 4k gameplay is visually 1000 fold. It doesn't compare.

I can tell from the videos on yt the game is going to look fantastic in PC 4k and the 4k consoles, probably much better than Unity and Syndicate in most areas. Especially the terrain, dirt, rocks, and water.

I'm not 100% sure but it even appears the splashes in the water when Bayek swims are even refracting the lighting of the landscape around him. Whether it's actually rendering this effect in-engine or not, it looks the part. It looks like it is though.

Slimgrin
07-22-2017, 03:04 AM
They look stunning to me. The character models don't have the detail you see in a game like Witcher 3, but the environment looks incredible. The water especially.

AnimusLover
07-22-2017, 08:50 AM
I think the graphics will improve much more upon release, and they've been doing that strategy with Syndicate as well. With Unity, they made that teaser which was gameplay graphics that looks a lot like CGI and gradually, people thought the game was being downgraded, even though the final product is still the best looking AC to date. But with Syndicate, the first demos and trailers were much lower in quality in comparison to the final product. Hell, even some trailers showed some characters' beards looking quite unfinished while later they were altered to look better.

Syndicate got better as it went along, agreed, but it still never compared to Unity in terms of graphics. The problem is there are open world games now that are more ambitious than AC and are graphically superior so when that's coupled with the fact that AC has already achieved its highest graphical state on this gen's console (Unity) there's really no excuse. Take more time with your games and then you can put something out that is graphically as good, if not better than Unity, whilst being polished.

AnimusLover
07-22-2017, 09:30 AM
I disagree!Being aware of the fact Origins has yet to be released and not ignoring Ubi doesn't have the best record in regards of graphics before announcements vs the final product....I have to say that out of those games two are exclusives -Horizon and Uncharted- a factor that SHOULDN'T be ignored and the latter one is a linear game so it doesn't even have to be compared in the first place.

I wasn't necessarily comparing Uncharted 4 or saying that Origins should be on that level. Of course that would not be fair as Uncharted 4 is a linear game and levels unravel one by one as opposed to co-existing in an open world state. The previous poster accused me of not being used to the setting and I was explaining that the issue is not about "being used to" because I have played games with similar settings. Regarding HZD being an exclusive, we have to bear in mind that whilst you are right, it is arguably less demanding than having to make a game for multiple platforms, HZD took 6 years to make for a console exclusive. Origins took less than that and it's multi platform. That in itself demonstrates my point that Ubisoft do not approach their games with the level of care that is needed for innovation and so they sacrifice ambition for time. Origins needed more time. You also forget that Horizon Zero Dawn was made for the ps4 pro in mind, which in itself demands more time and resources, yet still performed remarkably well on ps4 standard.



Now, The other two???

Again, I have yet to play the final version of Origins and the further comment is about the "platform" in which I play -Pc- but The Witcher at release and PRIOR both the official and fan made modes had big downgrade and looked NOTHING like the 2014 e3 demo and let alone the legendary 2013 showcase video... Controversy that ended up being some sort of forgotten and forgiven with the exception of some PC uber elitists because a) The game is superb in every sense of the word b) How huge and diverse the world is c) It ran without any problems d) How open CD Projekt Red concerning modes e) Ubisoft's more frequent shenanigans in that regard to name a company famous for it. Oh and don't get me started about The Witcher 3 in consoles.....

To say it looked "nothing" like the E3 demo is a huge exaggeration. Yes, it was downgraded but still graphically superior to most open world games out there, certainly graphically superior to Origins, Syndicate and, even, Unity. Whether the final product looked like the E3 demo or not is irrelevant. It looked superior to recent AC titles and ran better even when downgraded, yet was far more ambitious and had more stuff to do. It's a completely fair and damning comparison.


Last but least: Metal gear V. Now we are talking about two games that can be fairly compared. Based on what I have seen about Origins so far it has better lighting, a bigger -apparently- and more diverse world -the phantom is rather samey- and superior textures. MGSV takes the lead in the draw distance department and in game models. Overall and as of now, I say that Origins looks better than The Phantom Pain to me.

So the only game that qualifies to be compared to Origins is The Phantom Pain which, in your view, is graphically inferior to Origins? How convenient.

feenspear
07-29-2017, 04:33 PM
HA! this may be the single worst post on Ubisofts forum. I think you need to re-evaulate everything you look at in life pal, these games are all great looking games and you sir are a filthy knob!

Megas_Doux
07-29-2017, 08:21 PM
I wasn't necessarily comparing Uncharted 4 or saying that Origins should be on that level. Of course that would not be fair as Uncharted 4 is a linear game and levels unravel one by one as opposed to co-existing in an open world state. The previous poster accused me of not being used to the setting and I was explaining that the issue is not about "being used to" because I have played games with similar settings.



Fair enough!




Regarding HZD being an exclusive, we have to bear in mind that whilst you are right, it is arguably less demanding than having to make a game for multiple platforms, HZD took 6 years to make for a console exclusive. Origins took less than that and it's multi platform. That in itself demonstrates my point that Ubisoft do not approach their games with the level of care that is needed for innovation and so they sacrifice ambition for time. Origins needed more time. You also forget that Horizon Zero Dawn was made for the ps4 pro in mind, which in itself demands more time and resources, yet still performed remarkably well on ps4 standard.

.

While I've praised Horizon myself for way more stuff other than just graphics. It's also true than multi platform requires more effort than exclusives, mostly if PC is involved....So even though the comparison is valid, is not completely "fair". Focusing your effort in one single platform will always be easier spread it all over the place on many levels.





To say it looked "nothing" like the E3 demo is a huge exaggeration. Yes, it was downgraded but still graphically superior to most open world games out there, certainly graphically superior to Origins, Syndicate and, even, Unity. Whether the final product looked like the E3 demo or not is irrelevant. It looked superior to recent AC titles and ran better even when downgraded, yet was far more ambitious and had more stuff to do. It's a completely fair and damning comparison.



It might have exaggerated a bit, however it's true that mods put The Witcher 3 -it's PC version- way ahead any other game of its kind with the exception of may be GTA V even up to this day. Pretty well played by CD Projekt Red to allow its milestone to be modded, of the MANY things not only Ubi but also the rest of the companies should even encourage.

But then again, that's on PC, what about the Witcher 3 in consoles? Does it look that much better than Origins????? I think not and yes I know the Witcher 3 and I bet I've put more hours than you on it. The thing here is that PC is just an entire different world....






So the only game that qualifies to be compared to Origins is The Phantom Pain which, in your view, is graphically inferior to Origins? How convenient



Convenient?? Yes, but it's the only game that shares the same characteristics:

Open world??? Both are!

Multi platform????? Again, both!

Heck even the setting is somewhat similar in the way that both are developed thinking about desertic environments. Out of which, so far, I think Origins seems to have done a better job due to the fact The phantom pain is rather samey. However my almost one sided hatred for the game might be blinding me here, though.


Oh and don't get me wrong! I would've welcome another year off and I'm probably the biggest critic still standing annualization has in these forums. But the truth is that Origins graphics, at least so far, don't look bad for me.

AnimusLover
07-30-2017, 12:29 AM
But then again, that's on PC, what about the Witcher 3 in consoles? Does it look that much better than Origins?????

Yes. The facial models alone are far superior to Origins. Each skin rash, flush, scar, crow's feet tells a story of the characters. As for the environment, the way the leaves, bushes and grass constantly react to the wind makes the world feel like living 3D rather than a pretty painting. The only Assassin's Creed game to rival Witcher 3 graphically is Unity but that didn't run properly so doesn't count.



I think not and yes I know the Witcher 3 and I bet I've put more hours than you on it.

Wrong on both accounts.


Convenient?? Yes, but it's the only game that shares the same characteristics:

Open world??? Both are!

Multi platform????? Again, both!

As is Witcher 3 so don't know why TPP is more worthy of being compared other than the latter being the only game I've listed that is arguably graphically inferior, and even then it's really not. Compare the facial models and motion capture of Snake, Ocelot and Quiet to those in Origins and it's hard to believe TPP is last gen. Even the clothes and general environments have a grit and a grain that was last present in Unity and has not been seen in AC since. Metal Gear Solid looks like a TV episode. The 60 fps only added to that.


Heck even the setting is somewhat similar in the way that both are developed thinking about desertic environments. Out of which, so far, I think Origins seems to have done a better job due to the fact The phantom pain is rather samey.


Whether it all looks "samey" or not is aesthetics, not graphics. There's no doubt that Origins has a prettier world due to its very setting - a country full of cities and its famous landmarks will always look cooler to that of a barren desert. However, when it comes to graphics, with the exception of the water, I would say TPP rivals Origins.


However my almost one sided hatred for the game might be blinding me here, though.

Can I ask why you hate TPP? :D


Oh and don't get me wrong! I would've welcome another year off and I'm probably the biggest critic still standing annualization has in these forums. But the truth is that Origins graphics, at least so far, don't look bad for me.

Fair enough.

SofaJockey
07-30-2017, 10:12 PM
The game looks lovely.

WendysBrioche
08-01-2017, 12:26 PM
The game looks lovely.

Ya I agree. I have no complaints about the graphics.

And maybe people disagree, but it's looking to be one of the best looking open world environments this gen.

Will have to wait until I see it play in glorious 4k without being compressed by YouTube upload to be sure, but I mean it's so obvious it's going to look good.

SOLIDSOUTHCENTRA
08-03-2017, 11:46 PM
Graphics are pretty good on Origins. The 1080p graphics are good.

Megas_Doux
08-05-2017, 06:10 PM
Can I ask why you hate TPP? :D




This could a long, LONG rant -for I've been a HUGE Metal Gear fan since was like 9 years old- but I would try not to extend it THAT much:

1) The story and how it gets integrated -or should I say disintegrated due to cut or strangely arranged content- into the gameplay is just an incoherent, disorganized, non stopping confusing mess. Kojima tried to be edgy , but failed HARD in my book. Speaking of which....

2) Repeating missions in THE SAME location???? I mean, REALLY????? WHY???????

3) The missions aren't that great like in previous games. In fact, most of them are rather dull. Oh and now that I use the word dull:

4) The "bosses" - if those can be called so- other than Sahelanthropus are boring AF. What happened to the likes of Fox Hound or Cobra Unit??????

5) Ocelot, my almost favorite character, doesn't do a freaking thing other than spew some lines here and there when the hype indicated otherwise.... What a waste!!!!

6) Skull face is the absolute worst main villain in the series by a long shot. Adding further insult to injury his super hyped identity ending up being NOTHING. He looks menacing and he is there. That's it..... Liquid, Solidus, The Boss/volgin, Ocelot were all AWESOME and yet this guy appears, what a gigantic blob of meh.

7) The open world itself is dull. It might be me, but I don't think Metal Gear translated -or translates- that well into an open world style of game.

8) The FREAKING movie wise credits BEFORE every chapter. I mean, I know Kojima has an ego the size of Jupiter, but did he really have to FREAKING spoil which characters would appear in the mission just to put his name along with theirs?????



9) Last but not least and in fact the most important point here:



Kojima wants to me believe that the legendary Big Boss, the arguably best soldier of the century and a one man army of his own so exceptionally good at what he did -war- to the point not even genetically enhanced copies of himself couldn't match him can be successfully replaced by a "nobody". A truly skilled one but a nobody in the grand scheme of things in the lore of the game nonetheless.

I don't know......



There you have it xD

guest-5rir8GDV
08-05-2017, 11:19 PM
^^Hated TPP as well, a disgrace to the MGS series. Not sure what Kojima was smoking


Anyway the graphics look fine. We don't need another Unity esque disaster (in terms of performance problems).