PDA

View Full Version : AC:Brotherhood Graphics downgrade



rain89c
09-13-2010, 11:47 AM
AC1 had breathtaking graphics, especially when exposed to the sun, it felt amazingly realistic and real. The cities were outstanding and perfectly done.

Now to AC2, the graphics looks downgraded and more cartoonish, the engine looks different than AC1.

Now I look at AC:Brotherhood, and it looks even worst in certain buildings and landscapes,
for example take a look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHPjaUZ2PI

look at 2:15-2:19, horrible models and textures on the structures!

Why arent they using the AC1 engine?

Red Dead redemption's graphics blows AC2+AC Brotherhood out of the water...

Murcuseo
09-13-2010, 11:53 AM
That's your first close up view of those structures and it looks like post effects is on so I don't think it does it justice.

I'll reserve judgement on the graphics until I play the game.

Oatkeeper
09-13-2010, 11:58 AM
brotherhood has had a very noticable graphical upgrade last I checked, and of course stuff might still look a bit rough in places, I remember that we had two screenshots of the same scene in AC2 and they had several graphical differences.

and I think AC1 only looked better than AC2 in a few ways as well of the vise versa.

Mr_Shade
09-13-2010, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by rain89c:

look at 2:15-2:19, horrible models and textures on the structures!

Why arent they using the AC1 engine?

Red Dead redemption's graphics blows AC2+AC Brotherhood out of the water...

I personally would wait and see..

Even at 720p Youtube does compress video quite a bit, so it can smooth out textures, plus as already posted, the effects such as bloom may also be playing a role in the textures looking smoother than normal...


From the screenshots I have seen, scattered about these forums, it appears to be a very good looking game..

paisepatruuna
09-13-2010, 01:17 PM
In ac1 when you look far then graphics look better but in close http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif but they are still great but ac2 has betterhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

phil.llllll
09-13-2010, 06:58 PM
I think it's just that since the city is going to be bigger this time around the less detailed buildings in the background are going to be more noticable. And since this is really going to be pushing the engine to it's limits there might be some less detailed textures and geometry than before. Overall it's looking much the same as AC2 from what I can tell. The only very noticable upgrade to the game is the much improved facial animations.

ACfreak357
09-13-2010, 07:09 PM
I personally didnt notice much of a difference so im happy with the graphics for both AC1 and AC2 and even Brotherhood from what I have seen so far.

SBRedFlag
09-13-2010, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by paisepatruuna:
In ac1 when you look far then graphics look better but in close http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif but they are still great but ac2 has betterhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Are you crazy? The AC2 graphics were much worse than the AC1 graphics. But fortunately there's been a slight improvement with ACB as far as I can tell.
I do see what the OP means when we look at the dev diary. But, as has already been posted, this may be misleading. Wait until the game comes out, then feel free to rant http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JohnConnor2012
09-14-2010, 03:14 AM
I'd sooner trade a bigger, more diverse city for lower graphix quality anyway, frankly.

EzioAssassin51
09-14-2010, 04:20 AM
Plus, you can see the movement graphics are a lot smoother. Look at the GC Demo when Ezio is climbing around the pillars. The way he grabs the pillar in the first jump looks Be-A-Utiful!

rain89c
09-14-2010, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by JohnConnor2012:
I'd sooner trade a bigger, more diverse city for lower graphix quality anyway, frankly.
uh... thats basically turning the game maps into GTA's structure... no thanks. i'd choose a quality city over quantity any day.

NewBlade200
09-14-2010, 11:27 AM
graphics arent the most importand thing in a game. gameplay is much more important than graphics. after all, they are giving us more gameplay types, and the combat is deeper. bigger map, multiplayer, more depth to the gameplay, BAM > graphics. i would like great graphics, but i prefer gameplay. and its not that bad. the animations look great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AleCylon
09-15-2010, 03:09 AM
I consider then AC2 was more chelenging to elaborate cus all the detail and prettiness of the Renasance. I played AC1 on DX10 mode and yes it was gorgeous and more realistic but also less demanding to elaborate since almost all was plain and simple textures as the buildings etc.

I was surprised that AC2 wasent DX10 or had any of that, IMO thats the reason it had less realistic graphics. They screw it up on AC1 when eliminate DX10.1 support just cs cant manage how to make it properlly.

I hope in ACB as they delayed the PC version they take the time to make the game DX9 and DX10 or even betetr DX10 and also DX11 effects so they more updated hardware you ahve you can get a better and prettier game.