PDA

View Full Version : AC2 graphics worst than AC1 - PC?



f0xx123
04-09-2010, 11:13 AM
Both games at DX9 (FOV is different and AC1 has much more film grain) focus on the textures and 3D modeling which is horrible in AC2.

AC2 dx9
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1043/acc2x.th.png (http://img694.imageshack.us/i/acc2x.png/)

AC1 dx9
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1560/acc1m.th.png (http://img232.imageshack.us/i/acc1m.png/)

AC2 dx9
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/3683/ac22222.th.png (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/ac22222.png/)

AC1 dx9
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/2880/ac11111.th.png (http://img2.imageshack.us/i/ac11111.png/)
___

AC2 has less reflections, the 3D modeling is so bad that the characters look different from the previous game, the FOV is different so the character is more distant from us... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif whats wrong? cheap porting?

f0xx123
04-09-2010, 11:13 AM
Both games at DX9 (FOV is different and AC1 has much more film grain) focus on the textures and 3D modeling which is horrible in AC2.

AC2 dx9
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1043/acc2x.th.png (http://img694.imageshack.us/i/acc2x.png/)

AC1 dx9
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1560/acc1m.th.png (http://img232.imageshack.us/i/acc1m.png/)

AC2 dx9
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/3683/ac22222.th.png (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/ac22222.png/)

AC1 dx9
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/2880/ac11111.th.png (http://img2.imageshack.us/i/ac11111.png/)
___

AC2 has less reflections, the 3D modeling is so bad that the characters look different from the previous game, the FOV is different so the character is more distant from us... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif whats wrong? cheap porting?

BLaZiNgSPEED
04-09-2010, 11:44 AM
No I disagree!
The graphics of AC2 are awesome!
Yes these screenshots aren't that good.
DX9.0 is now considered ancient.

Well I play it at DX 10 I don't know if that makes any difference. But I do not see bad quality graphics!
For certain, AC2 is better than Just Cause 2 graphics.

Neon-NFO
04-09-2010, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BLaZiNgSPEED:
No I disagree!
The graphics of AC2 are awesome!
Yes these screenshots aren't that good.
DX9.0 is now considered ancient.

Well I play it at DX 10 I don't know if that makes any difference. But I do not see bad quality graphics!
For certain, AC2 is better than Just Cause 2 graphics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


AC2 doesn't support DX10, and it definitely doesn't look better than Just Cause 2...

f0xx123
04-09-2010, 12:31 PM
BLaZiNgSPEED you clearly dont know what you're talking about...

Your GPU may be compliant with dx10 and dx10.1 but if the game doesnt support it you dont play with it... AC2 being a dx9 only game you only run with dx9 like neonidas said and Just Cause 2 looks a million times better than AC2...

Look again to the screenshots, look at the face close-up SS, look how the moustache, the hair the scar have a higher resolution in AC1 compared to AC2, look how the face in AC2 looks awkward it almost looks like a different person, look at the lighting work in AC1 much better... open your eyes!

AC2 looks sharper but the textures and 3D modelling sucks, it looks like a game made in 2006..

phil.llllll
04-09-2010, 07:25 PM
The character modelling is down to personal tastes. I like AC1 Desmond much better as well but AC2 Kristen Bell is a major improvement.

The reflection quality is actually much better in AC2 - the water didn't even have proper reflections in AC1. The lighting is improved as well (HDR the obvious).

However one major hit to imagine quality (and it is big) is the agressive texture streaming that was implemented and the even more agressive LOD. Instead of the nice normal mapping we get a blurry mess straight into the distance.

Alex_HS
04-09-2010, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phil.llllll:
However one major hit to imagine quality (and it is big) is the agressive texture streaming that was implemented and the even more agressive LOD. Instead of the nice normal mapping we get a blurry mess straight into the distance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find that terrible not only in the architecture but also in the character models (peds).

AC PC version is much better looking than II.

AJ_Rimmer_Bsc
04-09-2010, 09:10 PM
totally agree with the OP on the desmond sections.
not even worthy of a 1990`s game.


ps..not cheap porting,cheap effort.

but the ezio sections are better in my opinion than AC 1`s misty format.

Engioc
04-09-2010, 10:18 PM
I didn't really notice any problems but I also didn't notice any real improvements, graphics in AC1 and AC2 seemed the same to me.

That's what I expected anyway since I gather its the same basic game engine with just a bit more tweaking done.

f0xx123
04-10-2010, 06:55 AM
Being the maps mor complex and since consoles couldnt handle them its logic they had to decrease graphics.. its amazing how some of you cant notice the differences (perhaps its means a great job from UBI disguising these differences).

Didnt you guys at least saw the differences in teh characters?? They look different from the previous one.. bone structure is different, theres less detail..

OVerall the game doesnt look bad thats a fact but the models and the textures dont look as good as the previous one and I hate the fact that they increased the FOV... I prefer the camera more close to Ezio (personal preference)..

Sypron
04-10-2010, 10:58 PM
I don't have a problem with any of the models or textures myself, but there are certain graphical effects which restrict the quality which I SHOULD be able to turn off on my PC.

For instance, the shadow range/quality fall off its MUCH closer than AC1's. Shadows only a few meters away are very low quality and pixelated, and shadows cease to exsist at a greater distance. AC1's shadow quality was higher at greater distances.

Also, the distant LOD fall off has been increased in AC2. Buildings which are not very far away at all use their distant models/textures and only show the high quality versions at short range.

These things are acceptable on a console, because the amount of complexity of the objects onscreen has been increased. But on a PC, especially a powerful one, we should be able to increase some of these settings.

f0xx123
04-11-2010, 02:56 AM
Yeah true, they invested all their money in a crackable protection and didnt have the money to make superiore grahpics for PC.

Riposa_in_Pace
04-11-2010, 10:36 AM
I'm with you on this one, f0xx123. The last post you've made may as well be the explanation of why the graphics aren't on the level of those in AC1, if not even a tad better with the today's progress in the graphics compartment. Shame really, but oh well, what can you do? I really liked how AC1 had that futuristic type of detail in it, everything's so sharp. While the graphics in AC2 don't kill the fun gameplay, they're definitely a step down.

oded1st
04-11-2010, 12:43 PM
I totaly Agree!!!

AC1 HAD SMOOTHER Graphics!!!
AC2 Looks Grained And Movment Is Not Smooth!!!

(mayby it needs to be played on DX10?)

FiskMunk
04-11-2010, 12:59 PM
For the last time, Ubi didn't bother to implement DX10 to their 4 months delay that is AC II. They didn't even fix the aspect ratio. Or offer us things that wasn't expected to be included in a normal console port. Yeah, they optimized the controls to fit a keyboard and mouse, but... No wait... They didn't bother with that either, did they?

And the horrible change of 3D modeling is not a product of the PC port, but rather an altered design. It's the same if you compare the console versions.
They dumbed down the story. And so, what, they decided to make the game design reflect that? Just look at Desmond, Ezio, Lucy and even Vidic! They look like cartoon characters!

And what's up with removing the film grain? I love film grain. Lots of people love the film grain. Also, how come you're so ridiculously zoomed out from Ezio (and Desmond http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif) when hopping around on high altitudes? It's not like it improved gameplay, and it's mean to the people who designed Ezio's awesome robes.

f0xx123
04-12-2010, 03:03 AM
Finally some people seeing what Im seeing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Yeah Lucy and Desmond look so different in AC2!

AC2 didnt have to have dx10 implementation, AC1 in DX9 looks good they just needed to do it properly in AC2, but yes its like Riposa_in_Pace says what can we do? :P

The objective of this post was to try to understand the reason for these graphical changes..

Like I mentioned before it makes sense to remove film grain, shadows, decrease textures resolution because all of these are very GPU/CPU demanding (being this a console port)...

..but why changing character design? They just dont feel the same when we're playing with them ^^

Ubisoft should explain us why..

Sheena8500
04-12-2010, 04:23 AM
Maybe it's just their method to "optimize" the game. Because AC2 run 25-30% slower than AC1 already on my machine and still AC1 look better, weird. So i don't want to imagine the framerate of AC2 with the same graphics quality than AC1 :P

exile550
04-12-2010, 07:29 AM
I totally agree that the graphics were better in the first game. The cities were more detailed and it overall just looked better. Ran worst too.

katz_bg
04-12-2010, 03:25 PM
On the PS3 AC2 looks much better than AC1. The difference is even more striking to me since I moved from a screen with a 3000:1 to one with a 50000:1 contrast ratio.

And I have to greatly disagree with FiskMunk.

f0xx123
04-12-2010, 04:38 PM
Not even talking about consoles, because console graphics always look bad when compared to the PC platform...

But I can understand your happiness about AC2 you're not playing a port http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@Sheena8500

Ye true it has worst graphics but it demands more than the previous one, weird..

The patch 1.01 fix list refers a performance boost but I didnt notice it ^^

Astrotoy7
04-14-2010, 11:04 PM
regardless of what shader model was used, AC1 was drab! Being set in the middle east - so much of it was hues of brown and tan. Compare that to what you get in Florence, and Venice!

The Desmond screenies are a poor choice for comparison of the two games - what percent of the entire game do you spend doing that?? (I absolutely hate the Desmond bits myself).

The richer colour palette in AC2 makes it visually richer(prettier to look at) than AC1, regardless of what shader model was used. Compare walking around in Carnivale in Venice to trudging around Damascus in AC1.

I'm lucky enough to have a decent GPU/monitor and run the game in 2500x1600p - I have also played the game on a PS3 on a 1080p TV.. the former looks better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

A7

Six_Gun
04-15-2010, 02:51 AM
No matter how you argue graphics, there's no getting around that AC has always been 90% environment in the looks department. The maps are huge in AC 2, and well detailed. I also find the texture LOD to be BETTER in AC 2, not worse. OK, let me explain.

I play AC on an old rig that requires lower settings. I set environment and shadows to 1, textures and models to 2. When playing AC 1 at those settings the guys on the roofs wouldn't even all be drawn in. Some that weren't all that distant I could see parts of them floating in mid air, the rest invisible.

AC 2 runs a tad slower than 1 on my old rig, but at least I can see everything and the environment looks outstanding and the day/night cycle and sunlight HDR is amazing. I agree with the above that the Desmond scenes are a very poor example of rating the graphics in this game, be fair.