PDA

View Full Version : Am I the only one who thinks AC 2 had the best graphics?



thebutcherhead
03-24-2011, 12:36 PM
I know this has been discussed many times before, but still- I think the people who thought AC 2's graphics were cartoonish just didn't understand the graphics style. They definately weren't "cartoonish" if you understood it.

I mean, brotherhood is better on detail in the texture work, but this is mitigated by that wierd shadow filter on the robes that makes it all speckled and weird. Lighting definately goes to AC 2.

If brotherhood had AC 2's style of character model lighting/rendering on top of brotherhood's textures, I think people would see that brotherhood wouldn't have looked a LOT better. Plus the weird shadowing in acb wouldn't be a problem either.

Idk am I the only one who gets this? I wish I could post a video or something to help explain.

thebutcherhead
03-24-2011, 12:36 PM
I know this has been discussed many times before, but still- I think the people who thought AC 2's graphics were cartoonish just didn't understand the graphics style. They definately weren't "cartoonish" if you understood it.

I mean, brotherhood is better on detail in the texture work, but this is mitigated by that wierd shadow filter on the robes that makes it all speckled and weird. Lighting definately goes to AC 2.

If brotherhood had AC 2's style of character model lighting/rendering on top of brotherhood's textures, I think people would see that brotherhood wouldn't have looked a LOT better. Plus the weird shadowing in acb wouldn't be a problem either.

Idk am I the only one who gets this? I wish I could post a video or something to help explain.

El_Sjietah
03-24-2011, 12:39 PM
Imo, AC1 had the best character models.

AC2 had so many weird faces (Lucy "fishface" Stillman). ACB is an improvement, but it's still not on the same level as AC1.

thebutcherhead
03-24-2011, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Imo, AC1 had the best character models.

AC2 had so many weird faces (Lucy "fishface" Stillman). ACB is an improvement, but it's still not on the same level as AC1. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noooo!!! This is not the case!!

I will admit that the detail on the faces was almost not present in AC 2, but it's wierd- if you look at the way the light hits the character models in AC 2 you'll notice it somehow works together with the blotchy textures to create an illusion of detail or realism... give ac 2 a play again sometime.

I don't know how to explain it it's really funky.

LadyGahan2010
03-24-2011, 12:54 PM
Graphics was discussed here many times, people often say they believe AC2 was "cartoonish". I disagree, just like OP I loved AC2 graphics, less boredom and not so bland as AC1.

thebutcherhead
03-24-2011, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LadyGahan2010:
Graphics was discussed here many times, people often say they believe AC2 was "cartoonish". I disagree, just like OP I loved AC2 graphics, less boredom and not so bland as AC1. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes!! Molto Grazie a Deo!! another believer!

Some people didn't understand it. When I first played AC 2 I was confused because it didn't look at all like AC 1. One of my friends explained the lighting to me and then the graphics all sank in at once and everything looked real and even more lifelike than in AC 1. I guess they removed the lighting style in brotherhood because AC 2 looked cartoonish if you didn't look at everything long enough for the wierd optical illusion thing to sink in.

Some people just see it right away and that's why they don't understand when others said it looked cartoonish or downgraded from AC 1.

elvindrummer
03-24-2011, 01:57 PM
yeah I agree lighting was better. I think faces actually looked more lifelike in AC2. Plus brotherhood has weird glitches and I don't think the graphics are bad but I remember being more impressed with AC2. ACB is the first game I've played in HD and its not bad but I wouldn't say its great either. Like cities are beautiful characters and horses aren't super great. I think ACB was somewhat rushed too because I always have weird like floating head glitches.

RebeccaLH
03-24-2011, 02:13 PM
Honestly,i dont care much as to me there isnt much difference to tell them apart.

thebutcherhead
03-24-2011, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RebeccaLH:
Honestly,i dont care much as to me there isnt much difference to tell them apart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your lucky.

itsamea-mario
03-24-2011, 03:02 PM
I prefered AC1, looked more gritty, brutal and real.
And the graphics for blood where MUCH better.

AC2 - ACB, meh.

kriegerdesgottes
03-24-2011, 03:26 PM
I remember seeing the first shots of ACII and thinking to myself, it can't actually look like that, I am sure that it just hasn't been polished and the graphics will be better on launch. I was wrong. In the first game they were insanely realistic, maybe it was the lighting or the color scheme, I don't know but it seemed so much more crisp and realistic than 2. There's actually a video somewhere where jean francois boivin says they wanted to go back to the crisp imaging that they used in the first game for ACB because of the way ACII turned out. and Brotherhood does look better.I just hate the grainy shadows in ACB and the eyes look weird on desmond and lucy. I should add that ACII was still beautiful and amazing, it just looked a little more cartoony to me.

itsamea-mario
03-24-2011, 03:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99J8iB_QS60
You can't honestly say this cutscene looks good?

Lethalla
03-24-2011, 04:42 PM
I also prefer AC2 graphics... AC1 was good too but the colour palette to similar (which you'd expect, IMO, from its locations).

Being set in a temperate location, AC2 seems more vibrant - I loved it (actually I bought my PS3 just to play this game).


ACB doesn't have the same look - "speckly" I guess, and the colours aren't as glorious. I hope the next release will go back to AC2's style.

Mic_92
03-24-2011, 07:56 PM
AC2 graphics were my least favorite, I didn't like those odd glossy textures.

Oatkeeper
03-24-2011, 10:17 PM
Not really. I think AC1 and ACB where both better, I wanna lean on ACB but I cant compare the two directly ATM.

I hear people talking about cartoonish visuals, I am usuallly one who LOVES more different artstyles, but I think AC is one of the few series where a realistic visuals really suits and improves the game.

though I would love Ubi take some lessons from Beyond Good and Evil HD's art design for future franchises they release, becuase the games art is really just beautiful in so many places despite mostly being an HD paintjob, which speaks to how much a good style can do for a game.

ace3001
03-24-2011, 10:31 PM
In my opinion, Brotherhood has the best looks. Graphics, presentation, overall. AC2 comes a close second. It might not be having as good graphics as AC1 (in technical terms, not aesthetic), but it looks more pleasant, as AC1 had such a bland and dull colour pallete. I was sick of grey and brown by the end of the game.

Xanatos2007
03-25-2011, 12:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
but it's still not on the same level as AC1. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The PC edition is.

bitebug2003
03-25-2011, 05:24 AM
Having played them right after eachother, AC:B definitely has got sharper and more vibrant colors than AC2.

AC1's palette was bland and quite dull.

Xanatos2007
03-25-2011, 05:33 AM
Sequels tend to be a lot more colourful for some reason, just compare COD4 to MW2. And compare Crysis to Crysis 2 for a more recent example.

Ass4ssin8me
03-25-2011, 01:51 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
I prefered AC1, looked more gritty, brutal and real.
And the graphics for blood where MUCH better.

AC2 - ACB, meh.[/QUOTE.

Yes!!! Took the words right out of my mouth! I played AC 1 before AC2 when Ingot into Assassins Creed, and I must say I was incredibly surprised. Despite the few missing fetures AC 1 beat AC2.. In alot of ways. The combat harder, the graphics and lighting, heck even his robes were more realistic the way they swing about. And unlike AC 2, whenbyou enter a city it is like a grand thing. I must say the only thing it really lacked was the story of AC 2.

crash3
03-26-2011, 05:12 PM
AC1 had better sound effects that went with the graphics to give the characters more weight in AC2 the graphics are definitely cartoonish and ezio must be light as a feather as he makes almost no sound when running or colliding with people ACB is definitely the best graphics so far in the AC series but they still look kind of outdated compared to other free roam games like 'red dead redemption' and 'the saboteur'

AC3 should have some spectacular graphics especially since ACB sold 6.5 million copies i think theres plenty of money there to spend on graphics dont you?

crash3
03-26-2011, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kolitha.kuruppu:
In my opinion, Brotherhood has the best looks. Graphics, presentation, overall. AC2 comes a close second. It might not be having as good graphics as AC1 (in technical terms, not aesthetic), but it looks more pleasant, as AC1 had such a bland and dull colour pallete. I was sick of grey and brown by the end of the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

to be fair medeival cities arent exactly gonna be as colourful and vibrant as renaissance cities

ProjectXanatos
03-26-2011, 06:08 PM
^ I was gonna say that.

But, I was wondering, you guys keep talking about lighting and such... how do you mean? Do you have any picture differences?

thebutcherhead
03-29-2011, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProjectXanatos:
^ I was gonna say that.

But, I was wondering, you guys keep talking about lighting and such... how do you mean? Do you have any picture differences? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AC Brotherhood misses out on reflective surfaces. AC 2 treated all clothing and even the skin on the character models with mild reflectiveness to the sunlight, which is closer to real life.

Even AC 1 had this kind of lighting, AC 2 tried to intensify it by darkening shaded areas when contrasted by sunlight on the char models. AC Brotherhood skipped it completely. Play AC 2 or 1, and move the camera around ezio/altair 360 degrees, if you look closely enough you'll notice the lighting hits the robes and reflects off of them differently at each angle. If you try the same with Brotherhood you'll see that it doesn't have this.

It's a subtle effect but for people who are aware of it brotherhood looks really bland compared to 2. I'll try to post pics later to explain it if I can.

mulli-ra
03-29-2011, 11:35 AM
To me AC1 had too much lighting. It was blinding me sometimes. AC2 had better reflections. But ACB had a lot of improvement in the face models in the cutscenes than AC2. But there is not much difference in the cities between AC2 and ACB.