PDA

View Full Version : Brotherhood's engine?



Tpain200
09-05-2011, 06:09 PM
So, I'm new to these forums (so I ask you to please bear with me) but I've been an Assassin's Creed fan ever since the first game was announced.

I don't know if this is a moot post but I thought I might add it to see if anyone else felt the same way. Is it just me or does brotherhood feel a bit more polished than ac2?

I feel like there's something that brotherhood has in common with AC that AC2 just doesn't have(on the ps3 at least) in both these games the cities feel bigger and the buildings have this more solid feeling to it, you can even see a lot more detail on brotherhood than ac2 (like the seeker's armor).

So do you guys feel the same or is it just me? Any tech savvy member knows if there is actually a significant difference between AC2 and brotherhood's engine?

blazefp
09-05-2011, 06:44 PM
I can't answer your last question but it seems quite normal that ACB is more polished than AC2. After all it's the next game.

I don't know why but I have a feeling that ACR will be more polished than ACB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

thedeadman_47
09-05-2011, 06:52 PM
for me i felt the cities in ac2 are much more polished than rome but other than that the small environments(exp:leonardo misssions,the vault,montaregionni.....)and characters(story characters or random NPCs)and the game's cutscenes felt much more polished than ac2 but as blazefp
said it's normal that the sequel is more polished than the game before it

Calvarok
09-05-2011, 06:53 PM
Ubisoft started with the anvil engine for AC1, they upgraded it in some ways and downgraded it in a lot of ways for AC2, and they upgraded it extensively for brotherhood. Revelations is also an extensive upgrade from Brotherhood, focusing more on character models, lighting, atmospheric effects, and building detail.

So yes, Brotherhood is better, but it is technically the same engine.

donngold
09-05-2011, 07:50 PM
Most of ac2 's cutscenes looked pretty bad where ac1 was and still is gorgeous. Acb looked much better than ac2. Idk why ac2 looked worse than ac1... i still think ac1 is the best looking but it only beats acb but a little

reini03
09-06-2011, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
Ubisoft started with the anvil engine for AC1, they upgraded it in some ways and downgraded it in a lot of ways for AC2, and they upgraded it extensively for brotherhood. Revelations is also an extensive upgrade from Brotherhood, focusing more on character models, lighting, atmospheric effects, and building detail.

So yes, Brotherhood is better, but it is technically the same engine.
That's true, but it was actually called Scimitar back in AC I. They renamed it to Anvil later.

squirrelyxd
09-06-2011, 03:18 AM
Meh, depends on what's really polished. Since in all reality all the games run on the same engine. Only real thing they changed in them was more or less updates. I do agree with Calvarok's statement. They upgraded and downgraded it to fit the scenes and gameplay. My only hope is they fix the "Arm Placement Glitch" I dunno if any Xbox owners have the problem but sometimes when Ezio/Altair sometimes climbs a building depending on where he lands his left arm usually crosses his body in a weird non-human like way. But i dunno if you guys know what i'm really talking about regardless of it ever happened to you. Lol.

Ulicies
09-07-2011, 05:28 PM
I was really disappointed in AC2's cutscenes after AC1. The faces were ugly and shallow, while AC1's faces were crisp and detailed. Lucy went from being pretty attractive in AC1 to downright weird and ugly in AC2, and then got better in ACB. Her face even closely resembled that one actress that I can't think of in AC1, but her lips looked completely distorted in AC2, and her eyes looked glassy and vacant. Wow, I never thought I'd rant about video game people... But it was just such a big difference that it was painfully noticeable.

AND the camera work was way better in AC1, in my opinion. Now the cutscenes remind me too much of GTA's, and back in AC1 it felt like their own unique perspective.

Jexx21
09-07-2011, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Ulicies:
I was really disappointed in AC2's cutscenes after AC1. The faces were ugly and shallow, while AC1's faces were crisp and detailed. Lucy went from being pretty attractive in AC1 to downright weird and ugly in AC2, and then got better in ACB. Her face even closely resembled that one actress that I can't think of in AC1, but her lips looked completely distorted in AC2, and her eyes looked glassy and vacant. Wow, I never thought I'd rant about video game people... But it was just such a big difference that it was painfully noticeable.

AND the camera work was way better in AC1, in my opinion. Now the cutscenes remind me too much of GTA's, and back in AC1 it felt like their own unique perspective.

Detailed faces? Are we talking about the game that has Al Mualim's beard look like it's a really elongated chin with a lot of fuzz on it?

And I thought those detailed faces looked ugly for the most part, and I also thought the camera angles felt too restrictive. Which is odd, because the cutscenes in AC2 and ACB were actually more restrictive. I guess I just liked the cinematic approach more.

Of course, AC2's faces sucked too, so :/

lol

Ulicies
09-07-2011, 06:10 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 Ulicies:
I was really disappointed in AC2's cutscenes after AC1. The faces were ugly and shallow, while AC1's faces were crisp and detailed. Lucy went from being pretty attractive in AC1 to downright weird and ugly in AC2, and then got better in ACB. Her face even closely resembled that one actress that I can't think of in AC1, but her lips looked completely distorted in AC2, and her eyes looked glassy and vacant. Wow, I never thought I'd rant about video game people... But it was just such a big difference that it was painfully noticeable.

AND the camera work was way better in AC1, in my opinion. Now the cutscenes remind me too much of GTA's, and back in AC1 it felt like their own unique perspective.

Detailed faces? Are we talking about the game that has Al Mualim's beard look like it's a really elongated chin with a lot of fuzz on it?

And I thought those detailed faces looked ugly for the most part, and I also thought the camera angles felt too restrictive. Which is odd, because the cutscenes in AC2 and ACB were actually more restrictive. I guess I just liked the cinematic approach more.

Of course, AC2's faces sucked too, so :/

lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I didn't say they were at the level of Crysis or L.A. Noire, but comparatively speaking, there was a HUGE difference between the two. And in AC1, the perspective was always attached to either Desmond or Altair, minus the assassination death chats; that point of view felt much more immersive to me. I felt a lot more detached from Ezio due to always viewing him (myself) in third-person.

GameFreak65
09-07-2011, 06:29 PM
Graphics rating for me is
1st:ACR
2nd:AC1
3rd:ACB
4th:AC2

AC1 beats ACB with just a small bit

rileypoole1234
09-07-2011, 08:06 PM
For some reason I get the strange feeling that Brotherhood almost was a test for Revelations. It looks much better than Brotherhood did to me at this point, and I thought that looked awesome. It should be an amazing game.

LightRey
09-08-2011, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
For some reason I get the strange feeling that Brotherhood almost was a test for Revelations. It looks much better than Brotherhood did to me at this point, and I thought that looked awesome. It should be an amazing game.
In a way you're probably right. Though I'd say it's more that ACB was more of a first try at it and they improved on it in ACR.