PDA

View Full Version : AC graphics have gone Down Hill?



Wolfmeister1010
06-05-2013, 08:39 PM
After playing AC1 again, I noticed some things. How is it that a game made in 2007 could be on par with a game made in 2012 for graphics and AI?????

In AC1, the cities look just as realistic and vibrant as the more recent games, and some things like smoke effects, particle effects, and more are even better.

In AC!, the guards actually walk around with their swords in ready almost out of their sheaths, and chase you realistically, not being dumb as a brick, but not psychic like in AC3.
The combat is less about showy moves and more about strength and skill. The guards actually stand a chance in the game. There is also alot more parrying and sword collisions in the game, unlike AC3, where all sword strikes are either swept away or meet flesh. There needs to be more quick sword collisions like in AC1.

Some of the graphics systems, like lighting, textures, and environment are JUST AS GOOD if not better than many of the recent games, even topping AC3 in some parts.

How is it possible that the cities of Acre, Jerusalem, and Damascus in a 2007 game feel just as big and expansive as the total amount of city space in AC3? Or AC2?

AM I just crazy about all this??? Does it have to do with how AC1 used one engine and all the rest used Anvil??

ProletariatPleb
06-05-2013, 08:41 PM
It's the same engine just renamed and modified from time to time.

Earlier it was called Scimitar, then Anvil and now AnvilNext.

And yeah AC1 is very good for it's time. Not necessarily... graphics as a whole. But I find almost everything looks better, especially the blood.

BATISTABUS
06-05-2013, 08:52 PM
For me, these things are just a few of the reasons I think AC1 is the best in the franchise. It's really surprising how much of a drop there were in graphics and animations (mostly on clothing) from AC1 to AC2. While certain aspects of the games have caught up since, AC1 still has the best lighting. It is truly a beautiful game.

Megas_Doux
06-05-2013, 09:05 PM
While certain aspects of the games have caught up since, AC1 still has the best lighting. It is truly a beautiful game.

Yes, but remember that it is "easier" to implement lightning when there is no day/night cycle.....

GreySkellig
06-05-2013, 09:29 PM
The combat is less about showy moves and more about strength and skill. The guards actually stand a chance in the game. There is also alot more parrying and sword collisions in the game, unlike AC3, where all sword strikes are either swept away or meet flesh. There needs to be more quick sword collisions like in AC1.

From a gameplay perspective, I agree this is a definite depreciation in combat. However, from a historian's perspective, I'm really happy about the decreased emphasis on parrying. With any kind of edged weapon, it's desirable to avoid blade-on-blade contact as much as possible. Blades chip and dent, and lots of parry action with any blade not designed specifically for dueling back-and-forth (such as a rapier, late period English smallsword or the transitional cut-and-thrust) will result in destruction of the weapon. Furthermore, most hand-to-hand combat--particularly between mismatched opponents, as virtually every guard-on-assassin encounter is--is over in a matter of seconds, with the defender usually only getting one chance to defend himself. As such, AC3's combat reflected a more realistic approach (in SOME ways--Connor employs some absurd moves, like spinning 360 degrees in between strikes).

While the combat may be less challenging and less interesting now, the decreased emphasis on the clash of blades is a positive to my mind.

pacmanate
06-05-2013, 09:56 PM
AC2 went cartoony

rileypoole1234
06-05-2013, 10:07 PM
I'd say design style has changed rather than graphics.

MasterAssasin84
06-05-2013, 10:12 PM
AC1's graphics was certainly something to shout about AC2's was very arty and jazzy which fitted the core gameplay and experience ie the renaissance period, i thought AC3's graphics was amazing including the weather effects which totally blew me away for example the detail were the rain penetrated Connors robes.

I am anticipating that AC4 will be more colourful and visually more eye catching than AC3.

Farlander1991
06-05-2013, 10:13 PM
(in SOME ways--Connor employs some absurd moves, like spinning 360 degrees in between strikes).

Which is funny, btw, considering that at one point AC3 devs said that they had a rule that 'an Assassin never spins' and that only Desmond would break that rule. Guess they changed their minds.

Though, I must say, I ADORE AC3's battle choreography (especially the double counters) even though some of it is clearly theatrical rather than historical.

MasterAssasin84
06-05-2013, 10:22 PM
Which is funny, btw, considering that at one point AC3 devs said that they had a rule that 'an Assassin never spins' and that only Desmond would break that rule. Guess they changed their minds.

Though, I must say, I ADORE AC3's battle choreography (especially the double counters) even though some of it is clearly theatrical rather than historical.

Double counters are awesome ! i was really blown away when i first saw this !

pacmanate
06-05-2013, 10:25 PM
"Desmond has his own moveset"

I call ********

Farlander1991
06-05-2013, 10:27 PM
Yeah, well, every mid-development statement of pretty much almost any game company should be processed with 'supposed' (added to each statement) in mind.

shobhit7777777
06-05-2013, 10:58 PM
AC3 on the PC is a beautiful beautiful game

BATISTABUS
06-06-2013, 02:20 AM
I don't think AC2's graphics are artsy or stylized...they're just not as good as any other console game in the franchise. Aside from that, everything is too grey (as opposed to the game's Assassin-Templar conflict).


AC3 on the PC is a beautiful beautiful game
How are the draw distances? That was one of the most visually disappointing things for me on the consoles.

ProletariatPleb
06-06-2013, 02:33 AM
I don't think AC2's graphics are artsy or stylized...they're just not as good as any other console game in the franchise. Aside from that, everything is too grey (as opposed to the game's Assassin-Templar conflict).


How are the draw distances? That was one of the most visually disappointing things for me on the consoles.
"At some points there were more than a hundred characters on display at the one moment. This gives an illusion of real life scenery and inevitably immerges the player straight into the renaissance life. The consequence resulted in a very tight budget such as low poly count and low texture resolution by character so we obviously had to optimize as much as possible every asset.


"Still to counter this aspect and to match the high quality graphic standard of the latest best games, we developed a few in-game techniques such as the possibility to overlay onto any desired area small swappable patterns or colors on top of the diffuse map. To maximize the workflow even more, we used a mix of 'old school' and 'next-gen' techniques to generate sharp details, normals and alphas."

About that Draw distance... slightly better than the consoles but still not good enough.

AvK KiNgKoBrA
06-06-2013, 06:29 PM
I'd say design style has changed rather than graphics.

This^^^ Looks bout the same to me

STDlyMcStudpants
06-06-2013, 06:45 PM
When I first started playing Assassins Creed series and went back to play AC 1 I thought it was a PS2 reboot/bonus game that came with my AC Revelations
I dont get where this whole awesome graphics thing comes from when talking about ac 1...God of war 1 looked better than AC 1 and was an actual ps2 game....

ze_topazio
06-06-2013, 06:55 PM
God of war 1 looked better than AC 1 and was an actual ps2 game....

http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/8/89055/1643120-tommyleejones.jpg