PDA

View Full Version : Graphics



donngold
05-11-2011, 09:16 PM
Anyone else think its sad how ac1 STILL looks better than ac2 and acb. The game is gourgeous, ac2 had terrible cutscenes and bad textures and acb is still not as good as ac1. On a side note the cutscenes in ac1 were awesome and the environments and atmosphere were so cool and realistic.

RzaRecta357
05-11-2011, 09:26 PM
The graphics got a major boost from AC2 to ACB so I don't agree with you on that. I do like AC1 the best though. I think the kill cams were way better too. You would see Altairs teeth and facial expressions.

The last two you don't really.

masterfenix2009
05-11-2011, 11:53 PM
Really? A graphics question? Though the facial animations weren't that great, the game was much more beautiful and alive than AC1. Brotherhood increased its value.
I don't know why this is even being asked. Graphics are unimportant and should not be focused on. Game play and story is what we should be talking about!

DavisP92
05-12-2011, 12:03 AM
graphics may not be a big thing to you, but i know i won't be playing a game that doesn't look good (and so do my friends). But from the pictures in the GI, the graphics already look better then ACB.

donngold
05-12-2011, 04:27 AM
Yes i do think acr will be a good looking game i was just saying acb is still below ac1 and thats the truth.

donngold
05-12-2011, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by assassino151:
Really? A graphics question? Though the facial animations weren't that great, the game was much more beautiful and alive than AC1. Brotherhood increased its value.
I don't know why this is even being asked. Graphics are unimportant and should not be focused on. Game play and story is what we should be talking about!

Yes gameplay and story are the important, but graphics are too a game that came out 4 years ago better look worse than one coming out now.

Noble6
05-12-2011, 06:44 AM
You have to remember that if game has "good" graphics it may not mean that game looks better.Using colors and different styles are important too.

Is it just me but I liked more AC2s look ?

People want bigger enviroment and better graphics but it is really difficult to get both with same consoles.

NORTHBOERN1
05-12-2011, 07:26 AM
AC1 doesn't even come close to the next two in anything but story and free running so far in my opinion.

ShaneO7K
05-12-2011, 07:34 AM
I usually would say gameplay over graphics, but one thing Ubisoft do is mention time and time again how beautiful their enviornments are. I'm not saying AC2 and ACB didn't have beautiful environments because they did, but not to the scale of AC1.

It's always great that if you're going to be playing somethings for hours on end that it looks great as to not get bored and so on.

But we have to take in that the cities in AC2 and ACB were bigger, which would be a factor in how good the graphics are.

masterfenix2009
05-12-2011, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Pdavis3:
graphics may not be a big thing to you, but i know i won't be playing a game that doesn't look good (and so do my friends). But from the pictures in the GI, the graphics already look better then ACB. So your going to judge a game based on graphics? I'm sorry,but that makes no sense. The most important things in game making is the gameplay. Then story..... etc. Graphics should be the last on their list.
Look at Mario and the first metal gear solid. Both games have terrible graphics, but they are fun. And they are still played today.

DavisP92
05-12-2011, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by assassino151:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pdavis3:
graphics may not be a big thing to you, but i know i won't be playing a game that doesn't look good (and so do my friends). But from the pictures in the GI, the graphics already look better then ACB. So your going to judge a game based on graphics? I'm sorry,but that makes no sense. The most important things in game making is the gameplay. Then story..... etc. Graphics should be the last on their list.
Look at Mario and the first metal gear solid. Both games have terrible graphics, but they are fun. And they are still played today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

u shouldn't jump to conclusions or make assumtions. I prefer a game that looks good over one that looks crappy. its one of the many things i look for. Including gameplay, story (maybe be the biggest thing for me), replay value, graphics, coop and multiplayer is the very last thing.

I don't play mario or Metal gear solid. so more power to the ppl that play it, i have nothing against them. But i prefer to play games that I like, so who are u to say that it makes no sense?

phil.llllll
05-12-2011, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by assassino151:
Graphics are unimportant and should not be focused on.

Nonsense. Graphics are very important, else the devs wouldn't constantly spend all the time with updates to the engine and all.

knightshad0w
05-12-2011, 11:35 AM
I like to think that everything like graphics (tesselation,anti-aliasing,HDR,good textures etc) aestetics[colour pallete,art style), audio (proper use of stereo,3d sound,OpenAl etc) , UI (interface), gameplay (freeroaming,combat,sneaking and so on), good framerate and no screen tearing as well as a good story should be great.

They should all come together to create a great game experience and should immerse you into the world.

RyokuMC
05-12-2011, 12:03 PM
The graphics of AC1 are better than AC Brtoher. AC1 is more realistic....

NORTHBOERN1
05-12-2011, 12:49 PM
I must have the wrong idea of what graphics are, because AC1 seems blah to me compared to ACII + ACB. Could somebody give an example of what's better? Don't get me wrong though the graphics of AC1 are still great though.

yly3
05-12-2011, 01:13 PM
What some people are trying to say here is that AC1 the graphics got so well with the story and the mood and the overall atmosphere of the game. You really did feel in the Crusade time. Not implying that Renaissance isn't well represented in AC2 (with more lively, vibrant colors).

AC1 graphics had a more dramatic impact rather than being up to date, or the best in that time.
And if you ask me, I also like AC1 the best when it comes to graphics, but again, by no means they were the best technically speaking.

Graphics are important in "fooling" you play more. I agree with what was posted up. I will loose more time playing AC1 because I get lost in that world ..because of how it looks, besides story and gameplay http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PhiIs1618033
05-12-2011, 01:19 PM
AC1's style was more zoomed out, Alta´r is smaller than Ezio on-screen. This has the effect that small details on the textures don't jump out as much. Add to that the fact that AC1 had a better atmosphere (for some, including me) and you have the reason why people say AC1's graphics were better.
If you zoom in, you'll see that AC2 and ACB's textures are higher res and all that.

SleezeRocker
05-12-2011, 01:28 PM
Best Visuals:
AC1
ACB
AC2

Sure ACB looks cartoony but I think it was more detailed and colorful than AC2.
But also, didn't AC1 and ACB had Havok running the game's graphics engine?
Whereas I don't think Ac2 had Havok?

Well I always cared for gameplay over graphics, but if it can both, cool! lol

donngold
05-12-2011, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by RyokuMC:
The graphics of AC1 are better than AC Brtoher. AC1 is more realistic....
Thank u! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Dieinthedark
05-12-2011, 02:49 PM
AC1-better textures
AC2/ACB-better colors

What makes good graphics-both
What's better-depends on the style. AC1 I think since because it took place so far back in history it would look wrong to be more vibrantly colored. AC2 during the Renaissance is a good reason to have a brighter color palate though.

itsamea-mario
05-12-2011, 03:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hqc4W5nP7o compared with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...0RIw&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrCrZqY0RIw&feature=related)

Though they're not the most important thing, graphics do matter. I thought that AC:B wasn't too bad actually, i liked it.

donngold
05-12-2011, 04:36 PM
Ac1 cutscene just looks so much better, i dont see how people can argue about the graphics, ac1 is definately superior. And yes acb looks better than ac2.
The ac1 music in the chase is beast too.

DavisP92
05-12-2011, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by PhiIs1618033...:
AC1's style was more zoomed out, Alta´r is smaller than Ezio on-screen. This has the effect that small details on the textures don't jump out as much. Add to that the fact that AC1 had a better atmosphere (for some, including me) and you have the reason why people say AC1's graphics were better.
If you zoom in, you'll see that AC2 and ACB's textures are higher res and all that.

Actually I see AC1's camera work showing Altair as a bigger character rather than AC2's. o the camera is closer to Altair and that in a way made it look more appealing, to me. The npcs were a lil bigger too.

Sangine12
05-12-2011, 11:46 PM
ACB was a step backwards in terms of graphics, because it was just one MASSIVE city, I fear Cons. will share the same fate.
AC2>AC1>ACB.

DualFace
05-12-2011, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Sangine12:
ACB was a step backwards in terms of graphics, because it was just one MASSIVE city, I fear Cons. will share the same fate.
AC2>AC1>ACB.

It's gonna have to. Constantinople is just that much bigger than Rome [in-game]. There's only
so much you can stretch graphic-fidelity amongst giant- landscapes like that, massive
amounts of NPCs, ect.

No one should expect Revelations to look any worse than the previous games though. Not
even in the slightest.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Language Please</span>

RzaRecta357
05-13-2011, 12:00 AM
The character graphics on ACB were amazing though.

I have a 50" plasma and I could tell instantly when I seen Ezio in his black Altair armor that it was WAY smoother on PS3 than AC2.

DavisP92
05-13-2011, 06:41 AM
I think AC1 did look the best, but ACR could look better or just as good. It already looks better then ACB and they said they are trying new things with camera work, new realistic style, and the L.A. Noire face thing

RebeccaLH
05-13-2011, 06:51 AM
I cant think back to the graphics of AC1.
But ACB had better than AC2.
I think that in ACR they are using technology to capture the facial expressions better, which already sounds like the graphics are going to improve.

NoCrowdedSky
05-13-2011, 07:39 AM
Hey all,

I think what most of you are talking about are asthetics rather than graphics. to get my point across i think i need to explain what asthetics are: they are how the game feels, this comes from the animation textures sound camera work everything that makes the game (in this instace Assassins creed) let you feel like you are Altair ect.


ok so now that thats out of the way i think that Ac1 did look better than ac2 and mabye brotherhood. This is because the first Ac had the right aesthetics; everything was dirty, the streets were paved with sand a gravel, the people were wearing raggs and begging for food at the side of the street and there were holes in the side of walls blasted by cannons a long time before you arrived and one more thing Altairs clothes were dirty aswell, this made it feel more realistic when playing the game. In the titles that proceded it Ezios clothing is a lot whiter and for me anyway takes away some of the immersion and Asthetic feel of history and being in that place in history, at the time people werent super clean. One more thing i think i need to point out is the running, the sounds when your running to be exact. In Ac1 Altair running was a lot louder, this came from the variety of pouches and swords that he held on his clothes, in Ac2 and brotherhood all you can hear is the sound of footsteps as you run around, i liked the extra sound as you ran :P.


anyway i hope they improve on the aesthetic feel of ACR so players will feel more immersed in the time period.

bveUSbve
05-13-2011, 08:01 AM
I think what most of you are talking about are asthetics rather than graphics.
Good point.

Graphics (imo): ACB > AC1 > AC2
Aesthetics (imo): ACB > AC2 > AC1

Of course with regard to aesthetics there is no objectivity ... I personally wasn't fond of AC1's bleached out, sandy color-palette. (Cutscenes are not as important to me.)

AC2 "improved" in colors (imo) and could maintain some color/contrast up to medium distance. But it's shadows were very low resolution and "twitching" all the time, some textures flickered annoyingly.

ACB's "world" features higher-res textures and is even better than AC2 in medium-distance contrast. Also shadows are much improved.
Thus: ACB has best graphics. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Master_Rahl
05-13-2011, 08:15 AM
Yeah, it seems that most people are getting aesthetics and graphics confused. Aesthetics would classify as the style of the buildings, the atmosphere and such, whereas graphics would be the textures that the buildings use and whatnot.

For me, I felt that the first Assassin's Creed had a much more crisp, realistic graphical quality to it than the other two, so for graphics it would go:

AC1, ACB, AC2

For aesthetics, Brotherhood really sucked me in with the architecture and whatnot, so for aesthetics:

ACB, AC1, AC2

I haven't played AC2 for a while but have played both AC1 and Brotherhood recently, and while the appearance of AC1 could be classified as a bit "bland," I still think it is a fitting atmosphere for the time and place and that it was well done.

NoCrowdedSky
05-13-2011, 09:51 AM
I disagree bveUSbve, the darker colours used in the first game really gave it that holywar/ middle ages feel and was very well done.

itsamea-mario
05-13-2011, 10:26 AM
I still think AC1 produced a better atmosphere.

NoCrowdedSky
05-13-2011, 10:30 AM
same

crash3
05-13-2011, 12:36 PM
i think the graphics can look a little cartoonish, i think the load screens look kind of tatty

little details annot me for example i can see ezios shoulder through his cape when he moves

all the characters look light as a feather as is you could pick them up with one hand. their movement and the sounds that go with their movements need to feel heavier

i thought the graphics for RDR were really good

rain89c
05-13-2011, 01:32 PM
I've been saying this since AC2 came out, but many people insist on saying AC2 had superior graphics to AC1.

AC1 beats AC2+ACB in graphics hands down. AC2/B looked cartoon-ish and does not look real compared to AC1.
The realistic environment and feel of AC1 is unmatchable by AC2/B. And it looks like ACR will adopt the graphics of AC2/B. AC1 used a different engine than the rest.

I just hope AC3 will have superior graphics than AC1, it most likely will anyway.

NoCrowdedSky
05-13-2011, 05:22 PM
I agree with Rain and Crash, the environments in ac2 and brotherhood are so much brighter and take away from the time period a little(acb does this less), although stunning the games should be, as i mentioned before: dirtier.

crash3
05-13-2011, 07:38 PM
one thing i noticed about th graphics was that all the histical buildings like pantheon or colloseum werent as big as they were in real life ive been to rome and i remember it took me ten minutes to walk from trajans column to the colloseum whereas in ACB it takes probably 1-2minutes, i know its only a minor thing but rome wasnt as big in the game as i thought it would be

roostersrule2
05-14-2011, 03:10 AM
the best graphics ive seen in the ac series is when i downloaded the ac2 dlc the graphics just looked better

crash3
05-14-2011, 05:47 AM
the point in the game when the graphics are worst is when we see those farfetched holographic images of Juno and Minerva they looked really tacky

PhiIs1618033
05-14-2011, 06:40 AM
AC:B has extreme popping issues. Also, the aesthetics aren't as good as AC1's.
Going with AC1 here. :P AC2 has popping issues, and some pretty messed up animations, like the 'execution' high-profile kill.