PDA

View Full Version : Did Assassins Creed 2 get a graphics downgrade?



killersensa2008
01-12-2010, 12:27 AM
The other day, after beating assassins creed 2 and being satisfied with my 100% completion, i realised i had nothing left to do until the DLC arrived, so i put in AC1 and sure enough i was amazed to see the it looked a hell of a lot better, character models and animations may of improved but the textures and lighting where vastly better in assassins creed one, the way the hot sun glared on altair was awsome and the general sense of heat givin off by the lighting was great. Not to mention that there where some awsome kill animations that got cut out like the leg break! holy **** that was awsome. And riding up on the crest of that hill outside of Damascus blew me away like nothing in AC2 has yet. maybe its because AC2 is a bigger game but its a sequel and i wouldve thought the graphics would be much improved not slightly worse? did anyone else notice this?

killersensa2008
01-12-2010, 12:27 AM
The other day, after beating assassins creed 2 and being satisfied with my 100% completion, i realised i had nothing left to do until the DLC arrived, so i put in AC1 and sure enough i was amazed to see the it looked a hell of a lot better, character models and animations may of improved but the textures and lighting where vastly better in assassins creed one, the way the hot sun glared on altair was awsome and the general sense of heat givin off by the lighting was great. Not to mention that there where some awsome kill animations that got cut out like the leg break! holy **** that was awsome. And riding up on the crest of that hill outside of Damascus blew me away like nothing in AC2 has yet. maybe its because AC2 is a bigger game but its a sequel and i wouldve thought the graphics would be much improved not slightly worse? did anyone else notice this?

Joshuajr2010
01-12-2010, 12:29 AM
Do you have the PS3 or the 360 version?

killersensa2008
01-12-2010, 12:37 AM
ps3. wich is appearantly the better one but ive seen both and couldnt see the difference.

Joshuajr2010
01-12-2010, 12:39 AM
I've got the 360. I don't really know which one is better. I've heard that the xbox has more details but the PS3 has better lighting, but I've never seen it, so I can't judge it.

phil.llllll
01-12-2010, 01:01 AM
I've heard several people complain about the downgrade. It seems in some areas they upgraded the graphics and in others it falls a bit short.

the amolang
01-12-2010, 02:11 AM
I would say that overall it is a bit of an upgrade, but not much considering its a full fledged sequel.

Geinref
01-12-2010, 11:20 AM
I agree with the graphics feeling a bit different from the first, but don't get me wrong, I love AC2 just as much if not more then AC1.

Though in the first one, everything had this gritty look to it, I can understand that it was due to the fact that during Altair's time there was a war going on so giving it that almost "desaturated" color gave it the theme.

Now the 2nd one, its all colorful but I'm assuming they went with that one since they wanted the renaissance architecture to be more living as the great artists themselves. Though i do admit they went back and tried that gritty look when you get to Forli!

TooLazy4Name
01-12-2010, 04:37 PM
Animations got clunkier. Environments got ALOT better. Character models got worse.

Answer your question?

mojsarn
01-13-2010, 07:48 AM
What I noticed when I played AC2 was the lightning, the sun lightning was much better in AC1 as you saw the sun blocked by clouds etc. And shadows was much smoother compare to AC2.

Locopells
01-13-2010, 07:52 AM
I think they put more into the day/night cycle, especially the shadow work at night, then into the lighting alone.

Matt_156
01-13-2010, 05:39 PM
the difference in lighting is really something. i'd forgotten how incredible AC1's lighting was until i did this test and it blows the sequel out of the water in that regard. one thing that really sticks out to me is the horses. i think they look tons better in AC1. on the other hand, i think the pedestrians look a lot better in 2, as do the details on the structures. but altair's character model is every bit as impressive if not more so than ezio's.

IEzioI
01-13-2010, 06:16 PM
I cant tell the difference to be honest.

sgt_brent
01-13-2010, 06:23 PM
360 is known to have better lighting.. Here check out this article (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6242816/index.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=morefeatures&tag=more-features;title;1) from GameSpot regarding graphics comparison between the two consoles..

I find most of the time the 360 looks more crisp.. As far as comparing AC1 and AC2.. I would have to say that AC1 might, in fact, be more detailed.. Higher quality textures and gradients with less gameplay.. Where as AC2 is packed with extra gameplay stuff, and they had to let a little bit of detail go..

But IMO - Both games are at the top of the list as far as graphics go..

InfernalTyrant
01-13-2010, 06:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">360 is known to have better lighting.. Here check out this article (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6242816/index.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=morefeatures&tag=more-features;title;1) from GameSpot regarding graphics comparison between the two consoles.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually it was the PS3 which had better lighting.

sgt_brent
01-13-2010, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by InfernalTyrant:
Actually it was the PS3 which had better lighting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 360 generally always features brighter highlights and darker shadows; In layman's terms.. Which is the case in 95% of those comparisons..

I own both systems, and I have to honestly say; And I am completely non-biased; That I prefer gaming on the 360 because the games do look better.. And I am running both on a full HD TV - Even though FULL HD isn't supported on the 360..

But game developers are usually developing and testing games on 360.. Unless a PS3 specific game, obviously.. So the games are usually optimized for 360.. It's unfortunate, really..

It's a common misconception.. But it comes down to the developer, and not really the console.. Because, in processing terms, PS3 SHOULD out perform 360..

InfernalTyrant
01-13-2010, 06:58 PM
I know that, but look at every comparison online and they all say that the PS3 has better lighting. And you can clearly see that with the pictures they show.

Matt_156
01-13-2010, 07:52 PM
regardless of the difference between consoles, the lighting in AC1 made things look almost photorealistic at times. you don't really get the same effect in AC2 on either console.

sgt_brent
01-13-2010, 10:10 PM
I'm just saying.. Out of all the games I have bought; 100% of them have been for 360.. I only RENT games for PS3.. (Unless it's a decent PS3 exclusive).. I have done my own comparison between my systems.. 360, 99% of the time, looked better..

The 360 does feature stronger blacks and whites.. So the lighting, IMO, looks better..

InfernalTyrant
01-13-2010, 10:22 PM
Like you said, most games are designed for the 360, then ported to the PS3 which results in the 360 looking better.
But if you compare exclusives the PS3 should always come out on top of the visuals.

Azugo
01-13-2010, 10:25 PM
Uh-Oh... This thread is starting to become a ''console wars'' thread.

InfernalTyrant
01-13-2010, 10:27 PM
No it's not, it's becoming a healthy discussion. There haven't even been any disagreements yet.

Azugo
01-13-2010, 10:32 PM
Healthy. 'Course!

I've noticed that our sigs are very familiar, InfernalTyrant. Or should I just call you Infernal, or Tyrant?

Watching the Cricket? Clarkey and Punter are putting on a nice partnership...

InfernalTyrant
01-13-2010, 10:46 PM
Call me whatever you want, as log as I can tell that it's me that you're addressing xD
Nah, I don't like the cricket. Can't wait for AFL season though!

Azugo
01-13-2010, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by InfernalTyrant:
Call me whatever you want, as log as I can tell that it's me that you're addressing xD
Nah, I don't like the cricket. Can't wait for AFL season though! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go the Adelaide Crows! We're going all the way this year! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

InfernalTyrant
01-13-2010, 10:53 PM
You wish, jellyfish.
Pies ftw!

Azugo
01-13-2010, 10:57 PM
Hahah, nice one. Jellyfish..

Seriously though, I reckon the Crows and the Pies are the next Geelong and St. Kilda. I mean, just look at the way we play against eachother: It's always tough and very physical. Plus, both teams have the best young talent. So, in 1-3 years time... Yeah, Y'know.

thebutcherhead
01-13-2010, 10:58 PM
I kinda have to agree. At first I was afraid to admit it ya know, esp on these forums since there were a lot of complaints about flaws in the first game that were corrected in AC 2.

I thought it wouled be better if I didn't complain about the graphics and ruin everyone's great game.

Also, I wasn't sure if it was just me. The graphics are definately different in the second game, but I thought maybe I was just so use to the first game that mayybe I just didn't "get" the new graphics asthetic style; some of my friends are convinced, after comparing the two games side by side, that AC 2 has the better graphics both in environments and character models.

I will say the environments from AC 2 had vastly improved from the first game, which were already like nothing I've ever seen they looked so real. As far as lighting, the first game may best the second, but the environment and architecture definately go to AC 2.

The night time sequences in AC 2 did look really good though, esp in Venice during Carnivale, the lighting was was amazing.

killersensa2008
01-13-2010, 11:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sgt_brent:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by InfernalTyrant:
Actually it was the PS3 which had better lighting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 360 generally always features brighter highlights and darker shadows; In layman's terms.. Which is the case in 95% of those comparisons..

I own both systems, and I have to honestly say; And I am completely non-biased; That I prefer gaming on the 360 because the games do look better.. And I am running both on a full HD TV - Even though FULL HD isn't supported on the 360..

But game developers are usually developing and testing games on 360.. Unless a PS3 specific game, obviously.. So the games are usually optimized for 360.. It's unfortunate, really..

It's a common misconception.. But it comes down to the developer, and not really the console.. Because, in processing terms, PS3 SHOULD out perform 360.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

im not so sure how 'non biased' u really are sgt. infact there was no need to bring up the 360s lighting in the first place. and please correct me if im wrong as you seem to have infinite wisdom when it comes to comparisons, but wasnt it the ps3 version of AC2 that everyone decided looked ever so slightly better? truth is there is hardly ever any difference. now in future try to stay on topic, this thread isnt titled 'wich system has better lighting'.

InfernalTyrant
01-13-2010, 11:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azugo:
Hahah, nice one. Jellyfish..

Seriously though, I reckon the Crows and the Pies are the next Geelong and St. Kilda. I mean, just look at the way we play against eachother: It's always tough and very physical. Plus, both teams have the best young talent. So, in 1-3 years time... Yeah, Y'know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest I've thought the same thing for the last couple of years. The games are always the most exciting of the whole season in my opinion, they're so fun to watch.

Azugo
01-14-2010, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by InfernalTyrant:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azugo:
Hahah, nice one. Jellyfish..

Seriously though, I reckon the Crows and the Pies are the next Geelong and St. Kilda. I mean, just look at the way we play against eachother: It's always tough and very physical. Plus, both teams have the best young talent. So, in 1-3 years time... Yeah, Y'know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest I've thought the same thing for the last couple of years. The games are always the most exciting of the whole season in my opinion, they're so fun to watch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFL in general is so fun to watch. But yeah, I know what you mean.

JayVayne
01-14-2010, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Not to mention that there where some awsome kill animations that got cut out like the leg break! holy **** that was awsome. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you talking about the dagger attack combo kill? Or something else.. because I always wondered, in the loading screen(where the animus voice would give you gameplay tips), she'd say something incomprehensible first, and then "Then finish him by breaking his legs, or throwing him to the ground."

I never knew! =( Someone enlighten me?

killersensa2008
01-15-2010, 08:55 PM
yeh i think its an attack combo (not a counter) with the dagger, its like gut punch, uppercut. then if u press attack once more, he breaks their legs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. its hard to come across and theres no specific buttons for it. but they cut it out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

sgt_brent
01-15-2010, 09:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by killersensa2008:
im not so sure how 'non biased' u really are sgt. infact there was no need to bring up the 360s lighting in the first place. and please correct me if im wrong as you seem to have infinite wisdom when it comes to comparisons, but wasnt it the ps3 version of AC2 that everyone decided looked ever so slightly better? truth is there is hardly ever any difference. now in future try to stay on topic, this thread isnt titled 'wich system has better lighting'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a discussion.. Discussions take different paths.. Who are you to dictate to me the direction of my conversations or debates? The title of this thread relates to graphics.. I didn't bring up the 360/PS3 part of it - I simply commented on it, within the given topic.. I don't think you were even involved with that discussion..

Tell me to stay on topic.. You're last post was about attack combos.. Well done!

Wonderglue
01-15-2010, 09:07 PM
The Leg Break is a Counter Move.
When a guard is doing a Heavy Attack, Counter it and you will enter a combo sequence. First two moves are always the same,the third move is the finishing one that kills the target. Depending on the weapons you have selected,you can perform the Leg Break by pressing the "Leg" button (PC: Space,Consoles: Dunno lol) 3 times,or by pressing it 2 times and pressing the Weapon button for a Weapon Counter (Dagger,Sword. Forgot about the Hidden Blade/Fists)If you don't do the combo till end,you won't kill the guard and he will just collapse to the floor then attack you seconds later.

Edit: Also talking about the Graphics i wouldn't know since i haven't played AC2 due to being delayed on PC &lt;_&lt;. But if you are comparing Xbox360 and PS3,the Xbox360 wins this in every way possible.
And i'm talking about Assassin's Creed 2 now not exclusives. I saw many images from both consoles. Xbox360 has Normal Mapping and Far Better Lighting/Textures on AC2,while PS3 hasn't. Still most people wouldn't even notice that unless comparing.
Partly blame the Developers for that since PS3 can perform that,i'm sure of it.

Assassin's Creed 1 still has nice graphics,and on PC it really looks nice. I heard that they removed the Cloud Shadow and Dust from AC2,and shadow maps are smaller,right?

Dragonfire126
01-17-2010, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wonderglue:
Edit: Also talking about the Graphics i wouldn't know since i haven't played AC2 due to being delayed on PC &lt;_&lt;. But if you are comparing Xbox360 and PS3,the Xbox360 wins this in every way possible.
And i'm talking about Assassin's Creed 2 now not exclusives. I saw many images from both consoles. Xbox360 has Normal Mapping and Far Better Lighting/Textures on AC2,while PS3 hasn't. Still most people wouldn't even notice that unless comparing.
Partly blame the Developers for that since PS3 can perform that,i'm sure of it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xbox360 exclusives always look like any other game released for both consoles, while PS3 exclusives are ALWAYS better in terms of graphics comparing to a game released for both consoles. So PS3 wins. So it seems that Micro$oft gives developers money to upgrade the graphics for the game on the Xbox360.

But i think that the graphics on AC2 were a bit static, more fluent movement would be great, and the textures haven't been improved compared to AC1, imho.

Wonderglue
01-17-2010, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dragonfire126:
Xbox360 exclusives always look like any other game released for both consoles, while PS3 exclusives are ALWAYS better in terms of graphics comparing to a game released for both consoles. So PS3 wins. So it seems that Micro$oft gives developers money to upgrade the graphics for the game on the Xbox360.<STRIKE>While you think of a clever anwser to retaliate, call Micro$oft to get your ****box fixed.</STRIKE>&lt;&lt;&lt; Rude and unnecessary.

But i think that the graphics on AC2 were a bit static, more fluent movement would be great, and the textures haven't been improved compared to AC1, imho. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So? There are more casual games than exclusives.
I would never buy a Console for Exclusives,thats why i'm always Comparing games that get released on Both Consoles and/or PC.
I never cared for exclusives and i usually skip those. Xbox 360 Wins 90% of the time,and before you say anything,i'm not a fanboy since i don't own any Consoles at all except for my old PS1.

It's not that Playstation 3 isn't good,but the developers suck at making anything great on it or they are just lazy. Since i'm sure they can make better graphics instead of those washed out textures/lightings featured on most games.

And i remember back in 2007 when they said "The time for ps3 has yet to come" it's been 4 years since their release,the Consoles are getting outdated.

So how long do we need to wait for PS3 to surpass Xbox 360 in both Price and Graphics?

So next year PS3 will maybe be better,but if you look how much time passed and how much games released in that time,i guess you know the winner.

I can write more Ups and Downs for both Consoles,but i won't.

If the game developers weren't so lazy and gave PS3 the same graphics featured on Xbox 360 on Multi-Console games,they i'm sure PS3 would win.

I Personally go with a PC instead of Consoles,and if i may say so,it's a lot cheaper than Buying a Console,big HDTV and around 30% more priced Games. Most people think it's the opposite but it ain't.

So much for Consoles...

Assassin's Creed 2 has good Graphics for a Sandbox based game.
AC2 is more "Candy" while AC1 is more "Grim" They had to remove some features to add others. And i myself love the Dark Atmosphere that was in AC1,music also,especially "Enter the Animus" but AC2 had everything better,and when i mean everything,i really mean everything. Except for maybe the Main Character,Altaïr was more badass and less emotional. As he progressed through the story,he was getting more calmer,smarter and better. Then again Ezio had similar features.

Assassin's Creed 2 is easier to the eye than Assassin's Creed 1,it's beautiful and relaxing.

I got a little off-topic,but anyways,my opinion on things.

Dragonfire126
01-17-2010, 07:06 PM
@Wonderglue: I agree with the fact that the developers are just lazy to get everything out of the PS3 , or Xbox360 for that matter. Square Enix said it has gone to the PS3's absolute limit, so i will see how that turns out, excited though!

But my true vision on every console is not which one is better, but which one you like best. As for you, Wonderglue, you like the PC better than any console. I think the Xbox360 is for people who only want a console for gaming, but the money you save is what you spend on the special account, like an xbox gold, or something. The PS3 is free of charge once you buy it, but ofcourse the DLC and other optional things are cool too. But the PS3 has Blu-Ray and more which makes it more expensive.

But I think we are getting way of topic here, no flaming meant here. If any fanboy wants to whine about the ups about his console, do it outside these forums please.

Now, back on topic! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

bushinosaya
01-17-2010, 08:26 PM
There was no downgrade !

In AC1, all buildings use very similar textures so their number is more limited, which allows devs to use higher resolution textures. In AC2, buildings are very different, but the memory available is the same... which gives lower res textures. Honestly, I found AC2 to be more beautiful than AC1. And they did an amazing job dealing with all that geometry and textures !

SteelCity999
01-18-2010, 03:32 PM
I am replaying AC2 as we speak and I must say that having just played Uncharted 2 that the cutscenes are just horrible. They llok like they belong on the PS2. One blatant example is when the Auditore family is being hanged...Ubisoft couldn't even make the ropes look real. Maybe since Nolan North does both voice overs for AC2 and U2, he could get naughty dog to help out ubisoft on the cutscenes!!! It doesn't do the rest of the game justice..the environments and everything else look so good. Not to mention the job they did with the lineage videos. Get it together guys!!

nightcobra
01-18-2010, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SteelCity999:
I am replaying AC2 as we speak and I must say that having just played Uncharted 2 that the cutscenes are just horrible. They llok like they belong on the PS2. One blatant example is when the Auditore family is being hanged...Ubisoft couldn't even make the ropes look real. Maybe since Nolan North does both voice overs for AC2 and U2, he could get naughty dog to help out ubisoft on the cutscenes!!! It doesn't do the rest of the game justice..the environments and everything else look so good. Not to mention the job they did with the lineage videos. Get it together guys!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


slaps you in the face, uncharted 2 has beautiful graphics due to its linear level structure.
being a sandbox game ac2 has to sacrifice certain things to attain this level of detail and graphics. bottom line is don't compare sandbox games graphics against linear structured games graphics, slaps you again to make sure that made it through.

jawshhunt
01-18-2010, 04:12 PM
lol I get it, the games made for 360 have better graphics on the 360...the games made for ps3 have better graphics on the ps3...duh

SteelCity999
01-18-2010, 07:13 PM
linear level structure should have nothing to do with cutscenes other than inital loadtimes which in a linear level they are easily available to play once yo trip the trigger point. In a "sandbox" game you still have to hit a trigger point to induce a cutscene - and you can't believe they have all of the cutscenes ready throughout the whole game.

The rest of the game is a definite improvement over AC1 and is gorgeous, but the only character that got an upgrade in a cutscene was Lucy. As it is, as developers they can choose how to maximize the playability and graphics of the game - they just need not be lazy about doing it. For instance, Guerilla ran Killzone 2 off the disc to make the game work - ablbeit it caused a short load time between sections of the level but I'd much rather have that than graphics that were suffering. In the PS3s case it seems the Sony studios have a better idea on how to extract what Sony wanted out of the console as opposed to ported games. I'm sure XBox is much the same.

thebutcherhead
01-18-2010, 09:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SteelCity999:
linear level structure should have nothing to do with cutscenes other than inital loadtimes which in a linear level they are easily available to play once yo trip the trigger point. In a "sandbox" game you still have to hit a trigger point to induce a cutscene - and you can't believe they have all of the cutscenes ready throughout the whole game.

The rest of the game is a definite improvement over AC1 and is gorgeous, but the only character that got an upgrade in a cutscene was Lucy. As it is, as developers they can choose how to maximize the playability and graphics of the game - they just need not be lazy about doing it. For instance, Guerilla ran Killzone 2 off the disc to make the game work - ablbeit it caused a short load time between sections of the level but I'd much rather have that than graphics that were suffering. In the PS3s case it seems the Sony studios have a better idea on how to extract what Sony wanted out of the console as opposed to ported games. I'm sure XBox is much the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I miss the cutscenes in AC 1 where you could walk around during cutscenes, the experience just seemed a lot more authentic that way. I was dissapointed when I found that the feature was cut from AC 2. Mixed with added ability to interact with the evironment that was in the game, I think it would have been pretty cool.

It was prob cut cause the story was more dramatic this time around though. Probably also why the mission structure was a lot more linear than in the first game. Kindof a let down though.

But, back to your point, I think the reason the cutscenes appeared less detailed was mainly because the camera zoomed in so closely to the faces of the characters, much more than in AC. In the first game you never noticed the flaws so much since the camera was always zoomed out.

AcidPT
01-19-2010, 02:45 PM
I hated walking around during cutscenes, I just focused on walking instead of listening lol. And yes, the characters are really bad

But really, AC2 is mind-blowingly awesome when it comes to graphics, although it's true that it's much more colourful than the first. Right there it loses that photorealistic nature.

What I think hits AC2 the most is some details like the colour of the water in Venice (it's way too bright and cartoony imo) and especially, the fight. Ever noticed that when you swing a sword there's a white trail/sparks in the air? That ****es me off so much... When i picked up the game for the first time the fights felt less like AC1 and more like Fable II. All that "stabiness" and speed and visual effects take away the realism of the first game I think.

Then again, they're both obscenely good.

nightcobra
01-19-2010, 02:53 PM
you're talking about realism in a game that's set inside a machine that lets you view and interact with your ancestor's memory?

Wonderglue
01-19-2010, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shadow8928:
you're talking about realism in a game that's set inside a machine that lets you view and interact with your ancestor's memory? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol'd.

Dragonfire126
01-24-2010, 05:54 PM
I just played AC2 with the complete HUD off and I wandered through the cities and scaled all the buildings and I have to say that it doesn't look like a downgrade, but an upgrade!
Any of you noticed the fog at a random time in the game? Or how the guards change shifts? Just turn the HUD off and climb all the tall buildings and then judge again. it looks awesome! Great job Ubisoft!!

Rompipalle1488
01-25-2010, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azugo:
Uh-Oh... This thread is starting to become a ''console wars'' thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, as long as you're on PS3 side, it's all good!
If you're on the Xbox 360 side... Bill Gates is a Templar and used the Piece of Eden to get all of his money!
Ooh... I should put that in my Siggy!

Wonderglue
01-25-2010, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rompipalle1488:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azugo:
Uh-Oh... This thread is starting to become a ''console wars'' thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, as long as you're on PS3 side, it's all good!
If you're on the Xbox 360 side... Bill Gates is a Templar and used the Piece of Eden to get all of his money!
Ooh... I should put that in my Siggy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh the Irony...

nitres15
01-25-2010, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rompipalle1488:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azugo:
Uh-Oh... This thread is starting to become a ''console wars'' thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, as long as you're on PS3 side, it's all good!
If you're on the Xbox 360 side... Bill Gates is a Templar and used the Piece of Eden to get all of his money!
Ooh... I should put that in my Siggy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i LOLīd my ### of

Rompipalle1488
01-25-2010, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wonderglue:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rompipalle1488:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Azugo:
Uh-Oh... This thread is starting to become a ''console wars'' thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, as long as you're on PS3 side, it's all good!
If you're on the Xbox 360 side... Bill Gates is a Templar and used the Piece of Eden to get all of his money!
Ooh... I should put that in my Siggy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh the Irony... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is that because the first computer he ever made was the Altair 8800? Or because he bought
the Codex Leicester, a collection of writings by Leonardo da Vinci for $30.8 million at an auction in 1994?

mysexypancreas
08-07-2010, 01:21 PM
i really miss the lighting from the first game, and the various blur effects during combat. i also liked the look and feel of the animus in the old game. the sequel lost a lot in graphics; what saved it was the improved gameplay. however, they removed parts of combat that were good in the old version. for example, the leg breaking. the original brutality move. and i also miss the counter attack where you knock your enemy over, or he knocks you over. they removed it for some reason. in short, i miss the old graphics. maybe brotherhood will bring them back.

KCizzll
08-07-2010, 02:35 PM
My 2c

Ac1 building textures were more realistic to me. building design too was better. Not EVERY inch of every wall was climbable...

notafanboy
08-07-2010, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shadow8928:
you're talking about realism in a game that's set inside a machine that lets you view and interact with your ancestor's memory? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>you know what he mean http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif and i agree with him the sword sound in ac1 sounded better

Razrback16
08-09-2010, 06:39 AM
I play on PC, but I felt like AC2 looked a bit better than AC1. The developers really could've taken it even further had they elected to use DX10 or DX11 though. It's impressive that they used DX9 for AC2 and DX10 for AC1, but AC2 looked better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ThaWhistle
08-10-2010, 01:09 AM
the best place to compare is Acre in AC1 and Acre in AC2

the difference is slight, its mostly a matter of lighting.

both games were done well graphically.

PhiIs1618033
08-11-2010, 06:53 AM
In my opinion, both games have great graphics, although different 'flavours'. The whole of ACII is more zoomed in than AC, meaning that you're more close to the character. This makes you notice faults a lot easier. Having said that, I prefer the zoom level of AC, but that's just me.
The texture styles differ a lot, too and that makes comparing the two difficult.

On the cutscene thing: AC and ACII both use the in-game engine to play cutscenes, contrary to most games, which use CGI (the visuals of the cutscene are premade with a computer program). Using the in-game engine allows changing of many outfits and walking around.