View Full Version : Why are the graphics so much better in AC1 compared to AC2?

06-14-2010, 05:35 PM
And not just the graphics, there is more life, the horse riding is much more interesting and fun.

I purchased AC1 the other day because I wanted to start collecting the full trilogy?, being the first one I expected to see less in it than AC2, I'm not tslking about game dynamics, I'm talking about detail.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely enjoy AC2, but things like terrain texturing are so much better in AC1.

Thoughts and opinions?

06-14-2010, 07:57 PM
AC2 was rushed during development.
PC version a straight up port.

06-14-2010, 08:05 PM
I agree that a lot of the graphics look a little funky up-close, like in cutscenes.

06-14-2010, 09:32 PM
AC1 does tend to have a bit more detail and better character models, but AC2 has better textures

06-15-2010, 01:05 AM
They definately put the extra graphics in AC:B it looked amazing at E3

06-15-2010, 12:34 PM
Yeah especially the cutscenes looked way better in the E3 demo from AC:B so I think that they've listened a little to us again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

06-15-2010, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Ezio2.0:but AC2 has better textures On what?, I found the textures to be better in AC1, most especially the terrain, ride a horse across the fields of Tuscanny and it's so bland, and the LOD textures in AC1 make AC2 look like a cartoon.

06-15-2010, 01:33 PM
Yeah, thats why I hated AC2 graphics, because it went from almost movie-like realistic graphics to totally cartoonish, both cutscenes and realtime. Also the lighting in AC1 was after Crysis the best I have ever seen in pc games so far. AC2 graphics missed this all and I think it was due to the lack of time. Iam really happy that after seeing the E3 demo,the graphics are back at AC1 level in realism, even exceed it.

06-15-2010, 04:23 PM
it might have been a compromise of how they built the cities or the amounts of textures in any given city.

i wouldnt be surprised that every city had more texture variations thus the textures had to be slightly lower rez which resulted in a smudgy look.
also maybe there are other improvements in one graphical department that made UBI resort to lowering other aspects like lighting or whatever.

personally i agree about the textures and that it seemed like shadows looked better in AC1 but i dont remember that well but i dont think the lighting was better in AC1. in AC2 there are different times of day and whatever my opinion of the lighting of AC2 might have been, it was all forgiven because of this improvement.

But the way the kingdom was created in AC1 was much much better than how the open fields of AC2 looked. it might have been a restriction of the true italian topography that forced this look but the CONSTANT pop ups of trees and details in the open fields was so distracting it amazed me. and the textures looked so artificial (the grass). in AC1 there were enough cliffs and bends that hid the limited view distance of the engine.

06-15-2010, 11:40 PM
Thats interesting. The gameplay at e3 live stage show had the same terrible graphics as AC2. But the demo from Ubisoft conference had 100 times better graphics. I just dont get it at all. Iam starting to get a feeling that the demo at the Ubi conference was all prerendered.

06-19-2010, 01:19 PM
I don't know about the PC and X360 versions, but on the PS3 AC2's graphics are greatly superior to AC1.

06-20-2010, 08:15 AM
The one graphical issue I have with AC2 is the black hole that is Lucy's mouth. It is quite disturbing, and it makes it look like she has been possessed by the darkness in Alan Wake.

06-24-2010, 05:52 PM
it is because they saved so much time and money buy using some of the same animations and models from the last game, that is why AC:B is coming out so soon