PDA

View Full Version : Could Rome have fit onto ACII?



REDFOX4554
08-27-2011, 09:56 AM
Hi there has been something that has bugged me ever since I beat AC2 and that's the thought that AC2 was cut short for money reasons and not space reasons.

I don't suppose anybody knows what the total size AC2 came to on the disc? I have been googling it for ages and keep getting all kinds of different answers regarding rips and image files etc but I don't think thats what im looking for. What i've been trying to find out is how much of the actual disk AC2 took up and whether they had any room to put any more content onto it, like a bit more of Rome for example.

Don't get me wrong they were both great games but in many ways AC2 and Brotherhood needed eachother and it bugs the hell out of me that they are 2 totally different games that are seperated from eathother.

Not to say that the entirety of AC2 and Brotherhood would have fit onto a single disc, Brotherhood was clearly padded out the the sake of it but theoretically if you just kept most of rome, scrapped the mountains and trimmed some of Tuscany and the Romagna off would they have been able to sqeeze Rome in?

chizzy12
08-27-2011, 10:02 AM
Wow dude who cares? seriously?

Assassin_M
08-27-2011, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by chizzy12:
Wow dude who cares? seriously?
Your post was not helpful to the OP nor was it respectful, as you dont seem to mind showing your complete disregard for his Question, which is more unnecessary waste of time, In short, if you have something useful to say then please do, if you dont, then non of us would like to hear it thank you.

reini03
08-27-2011, 10:51 AM
Rome was actually supposed to be in AC II, but they left it out because... because of a reason. I don't know why, but I think it was better this way, so they did not have to rush or delay anything. And I'm sure it would have fit on a single disc, at least on a Blu-ray. Not sure about DVDs.
Anyway, this stuff reminds me of Uncharted 3 already having exceeded the 50 GB mark...

Jexx21
08-27-2011, 11:11 AM
According to Steam, Assassin's Creed II was 5840 MB, or a little over 5.5 GB of space.

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood was 10200 MB, which is a little under 10 GB I think.

Assassin's Creed I was 9100 MB, or a little under 9 GB.

Now, this is the size of the PC games, and they are probably going to be a little larger due to the fact that they hold better textures to take advantage of the newer tech that consoles won't have until they release the new ones. I also don't know what a standard XBox/PS3 DVD can hold. But if your just looking for AC2 + Brotherhood single-player, it would of probably of been the size of Brotherhood.

twenty_glyphs
08-27-2011, 12:05 PM
I seriously doubt that any developers would cut content as big as Rome from a game just so it would fit onto one disc if they had already finished that content. They would just make it a two-disc game, as inconveniencing as that may be. The most likely answer is that they simply ran out of time and couldn't make Rome fit into AC2 in the time they had. They were already far enough behind that they cut Sequences 12 and 13, and the Full Synch and memory replay features from the disc that shipped.

kriegerdesgottes
08-27-2011, 12:15 PM
Phillipe Bergeron did say the original blueprint for ACII was Florenze, Vernice, and Rome and he said they got started on it and it just got bigger and bigger and he said they just had to stop because it was too big. Whether it was just too big for the game or whether it was due to time restrictions, I don't know. They ended up running out of time anyway though which is why replayable missions and two sequences are missing so either one is plausible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiBfpUnlxdI

Calvarok
08-27-2011, 12:29 PM
Rome was too big to add to AC2 in time.

And I'm kinda glad, since we got to see it in better detail and quality than the other cities in AC2. Looking back at the AC2 city engine, it looks like a steaming pile of you know what next to what Brotherhood was capable of.

kriegerdesgottes
08-27-2011, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
Rome was too big to add to AC2 in time.

And I'm kinda glad, since we got to see it in better detail and quality than the other cities in AC2. Looking back at the AC2 city engine, it looks like a steaming pile of you know what next to what Brotherhood was capable of.

I disagree, I think they are close to the same but I have to say I would rather look at ACII's visuals any day compared to the rather drab boring look of Rome. Don't get me wrong, Rome was beautiful but it was all pretty much the same. It just couldn't compete with the rich colors and variety of ACII's cities, especially Venice.

Jexx21
08-27-2011, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Calvarok:
Rome was too big to add to AC2 in time.

And I'm kinda glad, since we got to see it in better detail and quality than the other cities in AC2. Looking back at the AC2 city engine, it looks like a steaming pile of you know what next to what Brotherhood was capable of.

I disagree, I think they are close to the same but I have to say I would rather look at ACII's visuals any day compared to the rather drab boring look of Rome. Don't get me wrong, Rome was beautiful but it was all pretty much the same. It just couldn't compete with the rich colors and variety of ACII's cities, especially Venice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Close to the same? I noticed a HUGE leap from the graphics of AC2 to the graphics of ACB.

kriegerdesgottes
08-27-2011, 12:38 PM
I didn't.

Calvarok
08-27-2011, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
I didn't.
The draw distance of AC2 was worse, the textures were worse, and everything was actually a lot greyer and less vibrant than in ACB. I don't know exactly how to explain it, but every city looked kinda washed out or blurry. And the screen-tear for AC2 was much worse than any other AC game.

That said, AC2 was my favorite AC game, and I agree that Rome didn't have enough variation between its districts to be quite as awesome as all the AC2 cities combined.

But honestly, the draw distance in AC2 meant that you couldn't even look all the way across a city without seeing a wall of mist. In Rome, you can look entirely across the city, and still see quite detailed buildings.

Not to mention the better textures on clothing, and skin, better fire effects, and lighting.

ACB surprised me with how much it was better.

If you didn't notice those improvements, then fine. But I'm a little confused as to why you didnt. Do you have both games on hand to compare, at the moment?

kriegerdesgottes
08-27-2011, 01:17 PM
I am going to have to disagree. Any time I pop in ACII I am immediately blown away by the graphics and scope of the game. I get so used to playing brotherhood that I'll go back to ACII and every single time I notice the difference in scope and how much more beautiful the cities are in ACII. That's just my personal opinion. In rome, the buildings are amazingly done as far as landmark buildings but the rest are all pretty much the same and the entire city although quite beautiful, just has kind of an orange tint to it instead of the vibrant beautiful colors of ACII's cities. Rome also kind of has that confined feeling wherever you are. You almost feel like you're trapped in a cage compared to ACII where you have an overwhelming feeling of vastness and beauty.

Jexx21
08-27-2011, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
I didn't.
The draw distance of AC2 was worse, the textures were worse, and everything was actually a lot greyer and less vibrant than in ACB. I don't know exactly how to explain it, but every city looked kinda washed out or blurry. And the screen-tear for AC2 was much worse than any other AC game.

That said, AC2 was my favorite AC game, and I agree that Rome didn't have enough variation between its districts to be quite as awesome as all the AC2 cities combined.

But honestly, the draw distance in AC2 meant that you couldn't even look all the way across a city without seeing a wall of mist. In Rome, you can look entirely across the city, and still see quite detailed buildings.

Not to mention the better textures on clothing, and skin, better fire effects, and lighting.

ACB surprised me with how much it was better.

If you didn't notice those improvements, then fine. But I'm a little confused as to why you didnt. Do you have both games on hand to compare, at the moment? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have both games installed on my Steam account right now. I'll run them both at max settings looking out at Monterigionni.

Don't get me wrong, I found both games to be visually impressive, but ACB was more so in myt opinion.

I'm also partial to Brotherhood as my favorite game.

Oh, and I have the first Assassin's Creed installed too, I can run that up and look at the Masyaf tower or something if you guys want. Overall graphical comparison I guess. IMO AC2 was the worst game graphically.

Calvarok
08-27-2011, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
I am going to have to disagree. Any time I pop in ACII I am immediately blown away by the graphics and scope of the game. I get so used to playing brotherhood that I'll go back to ACII and every single time I notice the difference in scope and how much more beautiful the cities are in ACII. That's just my personal opinion. In rome, the buildings are amazingly done as far as landmark buildings but the rest are all pretty much the same and the entire city although quite beautiful, just has kind of an orange tint to it instead of the vibrant beautiful colors of ACII's cities. Rome also kind of has that confined feeling wherever you are. You almost feel like you're trapped in a cage compared to ACII where you have an overwhelming feeling of vastness and beauty.
I enjoy the layout of AC2 cities more, yes, but the technical improvements of ACB override its shortcomings, in my opinion. I find it nicer to look at.

medcsu11
08-27-2011, 01:39 PM
Rome was probably equal (bigger even) then Venice, Florence, and all the other cities in AC2 combined so I dont think it would have fit...on 1 disc at least.

I like that they were seperate entities all together. Rather have the Ezio tale be 3 dscs.

Jexx21
08-27-2011, 02:42 PM
AC2- Monterigionni (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921148900487/F89455A55B16B60F5BF49A5483485E821AE919A8/)
AC2- Ezio back + Country-side (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149000511/E45F97AB36458BAD542B305F8F6911FA67A2074C/)
AC2- Ezio (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149013276/730911788A2970E296A7F6EBE1B4318456D7FFA6/)
AC2- Assassin Well (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149031377/6929264D401DCDE38A2706034E59CD559A99D0A4/)
AC2- Overlooking Venice (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149964907/03BBA57D2A7D7E82C4055845322CAEB49ED7944E/)
AC2- Overlooking Florence (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921150086051/B7670B3F08C86CF5F6853BA6629937335CC7C16F/)

ACB- Monterigionni (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149404277/FEF98D57B3C28F2B6654947861EF5D2F472C9D01/)
ACB- Assassin Well (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149423377/423B8E3FBC2FFADF44D090D78CB05CB73851961A/)
ACB- Ezio Back + Countryside (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149669327/30BC85909ECA65C49653094EABBAD46D33A4FE0F/)
ACB- Ezio (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149701647/3E7330429CC08A16C045F11CA1ACDC32FF706203/)
ACB- Overlooking Rome (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149720629/1DFC82EBB15AA14B9C71E2B93E0EBF977B52767E/)

Calvarok
08-27-2011, 02:59 PM
Thank you for this! It's amazing to see how far the game's come.

One thing to note, the orange tint is because it's the afternoon permanantly in the only memory you can explore monteriggoni in ACB. Rome doesn't have an orange tint all the time at all, with its actual day and night system.

EDIT: and the Ezio model in AC2's textures are blurred or too smooth to look like fabric. compare it to the ACb, with more detail on the trim and fabric-like textures.

EDIT2: the city overview pictures perfectly illustrate what I'm talking about: the ACB picture is taken from much higher than the Florence or Venice ones, but the Florence and venice ones are already so hazy, and the buildings really far away look like they're fading. In ACB, the haze is minimal, and it has a way bigger scale than the other cities anyway. Buildings as far away as the Colleseum have lots more detail than in AC2.

Again, I love AC2, but Rome is just better technically. If only it had less open space. But hey, they're recreating the city from old blueprints of what it actually looked like then, so I can only blame the people who built new things in Rome at that time. : P

Jexx21
08-27-2011, 03:04 PM
I can hunt for some good pics of landmarks if you want them. I mainly got those up there as a comparison, but they don't really show off some of the amazing aspects of both engines with the landmarks.

EDIT: Actually, I have some other pics in my main screen library. Here: http://steamcommunity.com/id/jexx21/screenshots

kriegerdesgottes
08-27-2011, 03:05 PM
Yeah I still think ACII looks better but that's just me I guess. Thanks for posting those though Jexx21

Calvarok
08-27-2011, 03:07 PM
To each his own. : )

Jexx21
08-27-2011, 03:07 PM
One of my favorite screenies that I have online is this one.
http://cloud.steampowered.com/...BB4901322A5E20889E0/ (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559790099018010547/1B6935B4F8A5717CD7EC8BB4901322A5E20889E0/)

EDIT: holy hell that's a large picture. I blame myself for using my full screen resolution.

Animuses
08-27-2011, 03:17 PM
Rome is really nice at first, especially at night, but it gets boring so quickly. You see the same thing over and over. The countryside is the dullest part of Rome and it wasn't anywhere as nice as Tuscany.

Calvarok
08-27-2011, 03:17 PM
Just saying, armor and skin color never looked that good in AC2.

Animuses
08-27-2011, 03:22 PM
The armor and robes were obviously more detailed in Brotherhood, but the colors aren't as nice.

Jexx21
08-27-2011, 03:24 PM
I wonder if Ubi has a team designing a new engine for AC3. I hope so, I want to see big improvements on it. Not a game that uses the same engine for 5 games like CoD. But then again, I'm not sure that if I want Assassin's Creed to release like CoD if it means a decrease in quality...

Jexx21
08-27-2011, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
The armor and robes were obviously more detailed in Brotherhood, but the colors aren't as nice.

? I thought that the colors were a ton better in ACB than AC2. AC2 always gave me the impression that the screen was all foggy or smokey or something.

Calvarok
08-27-2011, 03:30 PM
I'm very happy with the engine improvements they've managed.

But that said, a new engine would really make AC3 feel like a big step forward, and a conclusion to Desmond's story.

Jexx21
08-27-2011, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
I'm very happy with the engine improvements they've managed.

But that said, a new engine would really make AC3 feel like a big step forward, and a conclusion to Desmond's story.

Mhm.

On a note for games after AC3, I really want one where we can create our own Assassin. But I have a feeling that it won't happen unless UbiSoft gave the reigns over to another company.

If they choose to give away their biggest money-maker though, I would want it to go to either ArenaNet to make a kick-*** MMO, or BioWare to make a kick-*** RPG.

Calvarok
08-27-2011, 03:40 PM
Arenanet making an Assassin's Creed MMO would cause me to die of nerdgasms. However, they'll probably not take on another project for a while, their entire company is focused on Guild Wars 2, and will be focused on free content patches, PvP balancing, and expansion packs for a long, long time.

I don't think that accepting another IP or set of lore rules is really what they're about.

medcsu11
08-27-2011, 04:25 PM
I still think Venice is the best looking city of them all.

Calvarok
08-27-2011, 04:38 PM
Of the AC cities, I actually preferred Florence. It was so bright and sunny, and it really felt alive and real. I enjoyed Venice, but there was something more moody about it. Almost like Acre, but obviously not that moody.

roostersrule2
08-27-2011, 05:23 PM
ACB is the best IMO but all they did was the lighting and textures just look at multiplayer venice or florence

Calvarok
08-27-2011, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by roostersrule2:
ACB is the best IMO but all they did was the lighting and textures just look at multiplayer venice or florence
Multiplayer Venice and Florence has so much added to it that it's astounding. It makes AC2's rendition of that particular spot look really lacking. The color and detail in the Palazzo is far better. And it's like that for AC2 in Rome as well. The Castel Sant Angelo and its famous bridge are so foggy and undefined. I really think that the lack of draw distance was the major problem with AC2's graphics. It's what made buildings across the city appear to fade.

Brotherhood is so impressive to me because its buildings look less foggy when seen from 3 times that distance!

C112408E
08-27-2011, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Calvarok:
I'm very happy with the engine improvements they've managed.

But that said, a new engine would really make AC3 feel like a big step forward, and a conclusion to Desmond's story.

Mhm.

On a note for games after AC3, I really want one where we can create our own Assassin. But I have a feeling that it won't happen unless UbiSoft gave the reigns over to another company.

If they choose to give away their biggest money-maker though, I would want it to go to either ArenaNet to make a kick-*** MMO, or BioWare to make a kick-*** RPG. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I would go crazy if Rockstar (Grand Theft Auto and Red Dead Redemption's creators) were to make the Assassin's Creed games. You could count on them to make freeroaming worth while and to integrate character customization very well.

kriegerdesgottes
08-27-2011, 06:23 PM
Rockstar is great at making open worlds, no doubt about it, but they just can not seem to figure out how to make enjoyable movement like Ubisoft does. And actually it's kind of more of a Patrice Desilets thing because he was always big on acrobatics and cool movement.

Calvarok
08-27-2011, 06:40 PM
Rockstar isn't as good at pacing their stories, though. IMHO, Red Dead had too many story threads that didn't really go anywhere, and too many characters who didn't really have a purpose but to take you on some wacky adventure. And the story seemed to trick you into thinking it was ending, far too often.

REDFOX4554
08-27-2011, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by twenty_glyphs:
I seriously doubt that any developers would cut content as big as Rome from a game just so it would fit onto one disc if they had already finished that content. They would just make it a two-disc game, as inconveniencing as that may be. The most likely answer is that they simply ran out of time and couldn't make Rome fit into AC2 in the time they had. They were already far enough behind that they cut Sequences 12 and 13, and the Full Synch and memory replay features from the disc that shipped.
Is that the the real reason they didn't give us 12 and 13 at first? I just assumed they wanted the release them as DLC all along to make a few extra bucks.

Maybe im just being skeptical for the sake of it, it seems that ever since dlc has hit consoles devolopers are taking full and sometimes too much advantage of it and holding back that which your supposed to be paying for (like main game sequences). But often not looking at it from the business perspective, I just assume that they take as long as they need and there are no strict deadlines and that if they feel they need to, they push it back as far and as frequently as they want. For a game as big as AC's sequel, fans WOULD have waited as long as they had to. But im not in the game making business so I don't know how it works.

I agree they are both great games but whenever I am playing 2 im wishing it had Brotherhoods combat, weapons, Assassin Recruits, mission replay and Rome. And whenever I am playing Brotherhood I miss the other cities, the tougher guards, the gallop among other things. It just seems a shame to add all this cool new stuff only to realise you can only use it in this one small part of what is clearly still AC2.
I would have been happy to wait another year or even longer for the 2 to have been merged into one big ridiculously badass epic journey of awesomeness. I mean how many times was MGS4 pushed back? I was more than happy to wait and still bought it on release.




Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
Phillipe Bergeron did say the original blueprint for ACII was Florenze, Vernice, and Rome and he said they got started on it and it just got bigger and bigger and he said they just had to stop because it was too big. Whether it was just too big for the game or whether it was due to time restrictions, I don't know. They ended up running out of time anyway though which is why replayable missions and two sequences are missing so either one is plausible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiBfpUnlxdI
Thanks for that just the thing I was looking for.
As for the scope thing I don't exactly see what it was that scared them off all of a sudden, if they had the room they should have just kept going until they were finished and content, there is no such thing as a game that is "too big" especially with an AC game set in Renaissance Italy, hell whenever I play through 2 I do the contract missions everytime purely to make the playthrough feel longer and more fulfilling. Same with Brotherhood I do all the dumb pointless guild missions because the game is so short.

The only excuse developers should ever have to say "enough" is if they have achieved what they set out to do (which they clearly hadn't) or if they simply run out of room (which by the looks of it was not the case either). If they had people breathing down their necks about financially favorable periods to release in they should have ignored them. It was a big and highly anticipated game and if a game is good and lives up to the hype it will sell well whatever time of year you release it in. If you make a good game, word will get around and people will buy it and the bigger and longer a game takes to beat the better, it just means you are getting more for your money which again puts you in peoples good books.

Calvarok
08-27-2011, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Redfox45:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by twenty_glyphs:
I seriously doubt that any developers would cut content as big as Rome from a game just so it would fit onto one disc if they had already finished that content. They would just make it a two-disc game, as inconveniencing as that may be. The most likely answer is that they simply ran out of time and couldn't make Rome fit into AC2 in the time they had. They were already far enough behind that they cut Sequences 12 and 13, and the Full Synch and memory replay features from the disc that shipped.
Is that the the real reason they didn't give us 12 and 13 at first? I just assumed they wanted the release them as DLC all along to make a few extra bucks.

Maybe im just being skeptical for the sake of it, it seems that ever since dlc has hit consoles devolopers are taking full and sometimes too much advantage of it and holding back that which your supposed to be paying for (like main game sequences). But often not looking at it from the business perspective, I just assume that they take as long as they need and there are no strict deadlines and that if they feel they need to, they push it back as far and as frequently as they want. For a game as big as AC's sequel, fans WOULD have waited as long as they had to. But im not in the game making business so I don't know how it works.

I agree they are both great games but whenever I am playing 2 im wishing it had Brotherhoods combat, weapons, Assassin Recruits, mission replay and Rome. And whenever I am playing Brotherhood I miss the other cities, the tougher guards, the gallop among other things. It just seems a shame to add all this cool new stuff only to realise you can only use it in this one small part of what is clearly still AC2.
I would have been happy to wait another year or even longer for the 2 to have been merged into one big ridiculously badass epic journey of awesomeness. I mean how many times was MGS4 pushed back? I was more than happy to wait and still bought it on release.




Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
Phillipe Bergeron did say the original blueprint for ACII was Florenze, Vernice, and Rome and he said they got started on it and it just got bigger and bigger and he said they just had to stop because it was too big. Whether it was just too big for the game or whether it was due to time restrictions, I don't know. They ended up running out of time anyway though which is why replayable missions and two sequences are missing so either one is plausible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiBfpUnlxdI
Thanks for that just the thing I was looking for.
As for the scope thing I don't exactly see what it was that scared them off all of a sudden, if they had the room they should have just kept going until they were finished and content, there is no such thing as a game that is "too big" especially with an AC game set in Renaissance Italy, hell whenever I play through 2 I do the contract missions everytime purely to make the playthrough feel longer and more fulfilling. Same with Brotherhood I do all the dumb pointless guild missions because the game is so short.

The only excuse developers should ever have to say "enough" is if they have achieved what they set out to do (which they clearly hadn't) or if they simply run out of room (which by the looks of it was not the case either). If they had people breathing down their necks about financially favorable periods to release in they should have ignored them. It was a big and highly anticipated game and if a game is good and lives up to the hype it will sell well whatever time of year you release it in. If you make a good game, word will get around and people will buy it and the bigger and longer a game takes to beat the better, it just means you are getting more for your money which again puts you in peoples good books. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ubisoft can only delay for a certain amount of time. They have deadlines.

And adding massive amounts of content requires lots of bug testing, so it would take more time/resources than you'd think.

twenty_glyphs
08-27-2011, 09:37 PM
@Redfox45: The real world doesn't work the way you are asking for. The developers work for Ubisoft and can't just say no they're not ready to release because they haven't finished Rome. It's their job to make as big and good of a game possible in the time they have. I'm sure they have some input as far as saying if we want to do this, it definitely will take 3 more months or something, but they still have to stick to the dates they are given. I agree that games will probably sell well any time of year, but there's no denying the power of the holiday season for driving extra sales. I've seen data that the first two Assassin's Creed games both had sales bumps even last holiday season.

And I believe there is such a thing as too big of a game. It's like saying there's no such thing as a movie that's too long if so, then why are most movies 2-3 hours? I think AC2 getting bigger would have definitely complicated the testing cycle, and it would have been overwhelming for some players. It's already big enough. You also have to look at it from a business perspective if they're doing all the extra work, they might as well get paid $60 twice instead of only once for the same amount of content if it's big enough to fill two games. Ubisoft has shareholdes who will demand this kind of thing too, so it's not as simple as you are making it out to be.

As for releasing later, I think that would have hurt AC2. Yes the series already had fans, but the first game was still criticized pretty often and 2 was the make or break moment for the series. It didn't yet have the loyal fanbase that it's developing now who would be willing to wait another year and still be as interested.

For everyone else talking about the difference in the graphics between AC2 and Brotherhood, there's a good way to compare them better. Just go to the second Christina mission in Brotherhood to the point where you're supposed to pick up your family's bodies. Once you hit that point, you can ignore it and climb around the main district of the city, including Giotto's Campanile. You can look off in the distance of Florence and see if you think Brotherhood's clearer draw distance looks better than the haze of AC2. I love AC2, but I still remember my disappointment at seeing how hazy the otherwise beautiful view was from the top of that tower the first time I played it.

Jexx21
08-27-2011, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
AC2- Monterigionni (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921148900487/F89455A55B16B60F5BF49A5483485E821AE919A8/)
AC2- Ezio back + Country-side (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149000511/E45F97AB36458BAD542B305F8F6911FA67A2074C/)
AC2- Ezio (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149013276/730911788A2970E296A7F6EBE1B4318456D7FFA6/)
AC2- Assassin Well (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149031377/6929264D401DCDE38A2706034E59CD559A99D0A4/)
AC2- Overlooking Venice (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149964907/03BBA57D2A7D7E82C4055845322CAEB49ED7944E/)
AC2- Overlooking Florence (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921150086051/B7670B3F08C86CF5F6853BA6629937335CC7C16F/)

ACB- Monterigionni (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149404277/FEF98D57B3C28F2B6654947861EF5D2F472C9D01/)
ACB- Assassin Well (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149423377/423B8E3FBC2FFADF44D090D78CB05CB73851961A/)
ACB- Ezio Back + Countryside (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149669327/30BC85909ECA65C49653094EABBAD46D33A4FE0F/)
ACB- Ezio (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149701647/3E7330429CC08A16C045F11CA1ACDC32FF706203/)
ACB- Overlooking Rome (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921149720629/1DFC82EBB15AA14B9C71E2B93E0EBF977B52767E/)

Thank you twenty for reminding me of the Christina missions.

ACB- Overlooking Florence (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921156278027/FE030B34FF4645B211F650E11E79CEB14DB584DE/)
ACB- Overlooking Venice (http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/559791921156400575/090F9415C678A3DE7A217B03FD81369C66956D4D/)

Sorry about the Venice one, I couldn't get to the same tower as in AC2 and the one I could get to was on the edge of the desync line.

On the topic of Venice having a mood around it in the game, it's because it has the same kind of blue lighting that Acre in AC1 had. Florence is more orange like Jerusalem (or was it Damascus?), and Forli and Tuscany were both green I think, but I'm not sure. I know Forli was green though.

Brotherhood though seems to get away from those city lighting schemes, or at least tones it down a lot.

Calvarok
08-27-2011, 10:45 PM
Brotherhood has lighting schemes similar to the acre one in the Vaticano district and any areas under Borgia influence. But it's not color schemed as much as it is more saturated and harsh.

And wow, both a those cities look so much better with just the fog gone and better lighting!

REDFOX4554
08-28-2011, 08:39 AM
Ubisoft has shareholdes who will demand this kind of thing too, so it's not as simple as you are making it out to be.



I figured as much. Still it's nice to finally know that hypothetically it could have been done. Thats pretty much all I was after.

Jexx21
08-28-2011, 08:43 AM
Mhm. Hey, if you guys want, I'll go around all three games on Max Settings and post some comparison shots in a new topic.

Including most of the landmarks. :P

lukaszep
08-28-2011, 12:03 PM
I think it was just to do with the time they had to finish it, and the fact that there would be too much content for one game, not one disc.

Calvarok
08-28-2011, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Mhm. Hey, if you guys want, I'll go around all three games on Max Settings and post some comparison shots in a new topic.

Including most of the landmarks. :P
That would be really great!