Cartoony style graphics....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starlord

People just want More more More! ~ Brave little Toaster

---

Wow! a Brave little toaster reference! i didnt know anyone else ever saw that movie!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rokien

you are joking right? You think the charters look the same? You are blind and being way to optimistic

---

For one its "characters" not charters. And I can say the same right back to you, "you are blind and way to negative". See what I did there? :)

Rokien: are you implying this is the final product? what you see right now is what you get for launch? it really sounds like it the way you are so harsh about anyone being "optimistic" that things might change between now and the release of 2.0. i keep thinking of how many changes that have been made in the lifespan of 1.0 to now and i see no reason why then cant improve on 2.0 between now and launch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starlord

For one its "characters" not charters. And I can say the same right back to you, "you are blind and way to negative". See what I did there? :)

---

Really? .................................................. You of all people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZakarnRosewood

Rokien: are you implying this is the final product? what you see right now is what you get for launch? it really sounds like it the way you are so harsh about anyone being "optimistic" that things might change between now and the release of 2.0. i keep thinking of how many changes that have been made in the lifespan of 1.0 to now and i see no reason why then cant improve on 2.0 between now and launch.

---

I did not imply, but take a look at beta from 1.0 EVERYONE was like, oh its just beta/alpha, just wait till it gets released! Ya, no, not doing that again.

I hope they do make the graphics like the first one, but they style, is completely different, you can tell, that wont change, and that's what I have a problem with, is the style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rokien

I did not imply, but take a look at beta from 1.0 EVERYONE was like, oh its just beta/alpha, just wait till it gets released! Ya, no, not doing that again.

I hope they do make the graphics like the first one, but they style, is completely different, you can tell, that wont change, and that's what I have a problem with, is the style.

---

You mean This?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZakarnRosewood

Rokien: are you implying this is the final product? what you see right now is what you get for launch? it really sounds like it the way you are so harsh about anyone being "optimistic" that things might change between now and the release of 2.0. i keep thinking of how many changes that have been made in the lifespan of 1.0 to now and i see no reason why then cant improve on 2.0 between now and launch.

---

And after.. ^_^ , like Direct X10/11 is planned after 2.0 launch - they mentioned 10/11 features being added.. so.. could be something epic

http://bit.ly/rpZ88x

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfN7OTUOTA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZakarnRosewood

You mean This?

---

You do know that the graphics did not change from alpha to release..... Sure some lighting changed and maybe got a higher resolution.......... come on now......

also, wasnt 1.0 under a different management team that was notorious for ignoring their testers? I might be mistaken but i was under the impression that team was replaced/shaken up and they have been much more involved with their player base. i could be wrong though, have been before, will be again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rokien

Really? .................................................. You of all people?

---

A rokien response. yep

Of all people? Im always like this, someone has to be positive or else people would feel like theirss no hope for this game. Howeveer, im talking to a brick wall which isn't healthy for me, so I'm going to stop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shougun

And after.. ^_^ , like Direct X10/11 is planned after 2.0 launch - they mentioned 10/11 features being added.. so.. could be something epic

http://bit.ly/rpZ88x

---

That too, i still think any "outrage" at this point is a complete over reaction. to raise concern and ask questions, sure, but i know the dev team has already commented on the "work in progress" status of the things they have shown regarding ARR. am i incorrect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZakarnRosewood

That too, i still think any "outrage" at this point is a complete over reaction. to raise concern and ask questions, sure, but i know the dev team has already commented on the "work in progress" status of the things they have shown regarding ARR. am i incorrect?

---

The most latest game version we've seen was the third Q/A live event and or the special talk session, third Q/A wasnt too much after the special presentation they did. So I believe those two are very similar game revisions. In that case both Yoshida and Yoshihisa (Hashimoto - Technical Director) said that the game still is very work in progress.

This gameplay footage you can turn to 1080P so it will look pretty damn good (and I started it on Yoshihisa's face :D) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_737hYbSCEs&t=8m50s

After a while it will go off screen game play and trailers - go to ~ 40:00 to get back to on screen gameplay.

Its safe to assume changes - but they might not know about some things we see, so until they say "its impossible, and we wont do it, please stop asking" I will mention whatever lol.

I don't think it's fair to post pics of version 1.0 on obviously the worst settings and then compare them to 2.0. At least put the settings to standard.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2h53djp.png

^Trees actually have textures, clothing had visible texture, individual chinks of armor seem to glint depending on angle of light. It's funny that people say ARR is based on the luminous engine, when Version 1.0 seems much more luminous than ARR.

Obviously graphics aren't the most important aspect of a game (gameplay is)... but wake up and face the facts all the same. They downgraded many things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shougun

The most latest game version we've seen was the third Q/A live event and or the special talk session, third Q/A wasnt too much after the special presentation they did. So I believe those two are very similar game revisions. In that case both Yoshida and Yoshihisa (Hashimoto - Technical Director) said that the game still is very work in progress.

This gameplay footage you can turn to 1080P so it will look pretty damn good (and I started it on Yoshihisa's face :D) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_737hYbSCEs&t=8m50s

After a while it will go off screen game play and trailers - go to ~ 40:00 to get back to on screen gameplay.

Its safe to assume changes - but they might not know about some things we see, so until they say "its impossible, and we wont do it, please stop asking" I will mention whatever lol.

---

Like how they have said they purposely took out some of the nice animations. That i fully understand. and i guess i;m just as much at fault for keeping this alive by feeding into the argument. my apologies.

You do realize Flight Simulator X was purposely downgraded in DX9 mode to sell more copies of Vista don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valmonte

You do realize Flight Simulator X was purposely downgraded in DX9 mode to sell more copies of Vista don't you?

---

I do lol - but I linked a Crysis video as well. It didnt make it into Zakarn's post because I edited after they had quoted me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfN7OTUOTA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starlord

For one its "characters" not charters. And I can say the same right back to you, "you are blind and way to negative". See what I did there? :)

---

Muphry's law at its finest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ingolf

Muphry's law at its finest.

---

That's why I said, you of all people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ingolf

Muphry's law at its finest.

---

"When something can go wrong, it will" but you and anyone else can prevent themselves from going down a wrong path, or help make it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starlord

"When something can go wrong, it will" but you and anyone else can prevent themselves from going down a wrong path, or help make it right.

---

http://www.scientificamerican.com/me...age/smokey.jpg

Hear have another DirectX cookie :D (see what I did there?) : http://youtu.be/iTNg0f9CPsI?hd=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shougun

http://www.scientificamerican.com/me...age/smokey.jpg

Hear have another DirectX cookie :D (see what I did there?) : http://youtu.be/iTNg0f9CPsI?hd=1

---

I gotta admit that made me laugh

Hear have another DirectX cookie :D (see what I did there?) : http://youtu.be/iTNg0f9CPsI?hd=1[/QUOTE]

How about taking a look at other game comparisons of D3D9 vs D3D10/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSYkYJ3XxFE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpZ-wuMuss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjWf3mbHiz4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqiD3p8gfmw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF9TyOVSw84

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IYb3NsZP7k

You notice a pattern? Hard to tell the difference between D3D9, 10 and 11.

Shougun has confused D3D11 with the Crytek 3 engine. I promise that D3D 11 is not the reason why Crisis 2 looks the way it does in those videos. It's the game's engine. And that game can be made to look nearly just as good using D3D 9 as it does in D3D 11.

D3D 11 does not just magically make things prettier. And adding support for D3d 11 would most certainly cause more problems than benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laraul

D3D 11 does not just magically make things prettier. And adding support for D3d 11 would most certainly cause more problems than benefits.

---

Never said it makes the game magically better. But they do have feature differences that allow you to do things easier then in the other versions.

I find it funny that you linked that last video.. there are huge differences in that one.. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IYb3NsZP7k

(the stairs is a stupid example though...), the crysis video I posted a few posts ago is a good example.

Boy, 2.0 sure is a visual downgrade, guys!

http://i.imgur.com/RRKoP.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/kEp1m.jpg

Look at those sweet N64 Textures, please don't give us better textures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbygunz

I don't think it's fair to post pics of version 1.0 on obviously the worst settings and then compare them to 2.0. At least put the settings to standard..

---

Yeah, most people aren't even running it at standard let alone with any bells & whistles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valmonte

A Successful Launch that holds its subscriber base longer than 3 months, from what im seeing people will start dropping off in about 2. We played this bare bones game first, content later card...it didnt work so well for tanaka.

---

Can you be more specific?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrien

Can you be more specific?

---

Gameplay & Content> Graphics. Graphics is just a bonus to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrien

Can you be more specific?

---

Seemed straight forward to me:

1. Most new MMOs rarely retain a large portion of it's playerbase after the honeymoon period.
2. Most MMOs die out at the let's be friends phase half a year later.
3. A lot of newer MMOs get flatout killed by the vengeful girlfriend 1 year later.

Basically, newly launched MMOs tend to die out very quick in this day and age usually because "it's not WoW!!!1", and many that stick around loses a good majority of it's playerbase within a year of launch. Relaunched MMOs also rarely survive or pull in enough interest that the company sells it off or closes it's doors on it shortly aftfer.

GW2 for example is starting to bleed but it's still popular due to it being a new MMO, the real test is 3-4 months after release for a new/relaunched MMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elexia

Seemed straight forward to me:

1. Most new MMOs rarely retain a large portion of it's playerbase after the honeymoon period.
2. Most MMOs die out at the let's be friends phase half a year later.
3. A lot of newer MMOs get flatout killed by the vengeful girlfriend 1 year later.

Basically, newly launched MMOs tend to die out very quick in this day and age usually because "it's not WoW!!!1", and many that stick around loses a good majority of it's playerbase within a year of launch. Relaunched MMOs also rarely survive or pull in enough interest that the company sells it off or closes it's doors on it shortly aftfer.

GW2 for example is starting to bleed but it's still popular due to it being a new MMO, the real test is 3-4 months after release for a new/relaunched MMO.

---

I guess this is the case where it is a good thing SE is stubborn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ruisu

please don't give us better textures.

---

they're not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbygunz

they're not.

---

Oh, so we're keeping the same shitty PS1 textures that we have right now. Great. So it's not a downgrade after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elexia

Yeah, most people aren't even running it at standard let alone with any bells & whistles.

---

I had XIV running ok in beta and just after launch on my old system which was a dual core AMD and GTX 260sli..
I'll give that it wasn't 60fps+ all the time and UL it was laggy but it was still playable.

Any half decent Pc is going to match that spec really (2008 PC i think), i know people don't want to be spending cash every year, but if your going to game on a PC you do have to put a little money into it every now and then and keep it reasonably up to date. (an i3/5, budget mobo 4gb ram and gtx560 could play this game well)

But if people are struggling with this now, with all the options and need to turn the game down that much? Its almost like they are asking to play a PS3 game on a PS2.

I'm not saying they shouldn't get a helping hand and have a low res version made, but tech has moved on since the 1.0 launch, the hi end graphics should be getting better or at least as good, not just down grading the whole lot for the people with ancient PC's.

Also one of the biggest benefits of DX11 is having a low res version of something and just using tessellation to improve it with textures, it actually helps with development time as well.
(my working knowledge isn't amazing so my wording might not be 100% on that, but i remember an old thread on overclockers i may find to link.)

Edit: gona add in that I'm holding off if its a downgrade till I see benchmarks or beta..
I'm just joining in as i am concerned they are going to drop to much of what is an amazing looking game that tbh, is't that demanding any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ruisu

Oh, so we're keeping the same shitty PS1 textures that we have right now. Great. So it's not a downgrade after all.

---

Plus theyre adding extra bonus shitty PS1 textures for your amusement. You'll never run out of shitty textures again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbygunz

Plus theyre adding extra bonus shitty PS1 textures for your amusement. You'll never run out of shitty textures again.

---

Except 2.0 is going to have actual LoD instead of the shitty current blur that they call depth of field. So you're wrong. Enjoy that anal fissure of yours while I enjoy things not looking like shit in the far distance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ruisu

Except 2.0 is going to have actual LoD instead of the shitty current blur that they call depth of field. So you're wrong. Enjoy that anal fissure of yours while I enjoy things not looking like shit in the far distance.

---

Llighten up. Actually, cry it out. That's healthy.

But the point obviously remains that they downgraded things. Nobody's complaining about improvements to depth of field. If it took 2 years for them to improve that flaw, then well done. But if it takes them 2 years to improve that while making everything worse then they're obviously overpaid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbygunz

Llighten up. Actually, cry it out. That's healthy.

But the point obviously remains that they downgraded things. Nobody's complaining about improvements to depth of field. If it took 2 years for them to improve that flaw, then well done. But if it takes them 2 years to improve that while making everything worse then they're obviously overpaid.

---

Aside from the actual characters' facial features, everything looks more or less the same, albeit washed out. There's not very much different at all, and they've already stated that the shaders/textures were still a WIP.

Foliage even looks somewhat better, if not more or less the same as it looks now. ARR, is an upgrade compared to the current game, overall. A few downgrade for a vast amount of upgrades is exactly what everyone was expecting, considering they want this to run on the PS3.

Lolforums...

i got your light right here.

http://imageshack.us/a/img88/5792/ffxiv1336698052.jpg

I think that the graphics should be the least of everyone's concerns right now, Graphics are nothing without a solid game to back it up. Graphics can always be optimized down the road, but if the content isn't there to last us till next patch at launch , then there could be a problem.

We don't want another 1.0, Awesome graphics horrible game at launch. ------> Lets not make the same mistake twice<----

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbygunz

yes, a healthy amount of light for definition that doesnt desaturate and reduce all hint of texture quality/model structure.

For the so-called "improved lighting system", the character models in ARR don't actually even seem to respond to light properly. The metals don't glint in ARR like they do in current version. It looks very dulled. If you look at any screenshot of a Dragoon or Paladin, the metals seem very dull and flat. Furthermore, no matter which direction they face, there's almost no definition of the character's shape in response to the light. It seems like they're very flat. These are just observations.

There's problems in 1.0 too, such as in certain lighting conditions (i.e., night time), there is a loss of interesting lighting effects, but after 2 years you expect an improvement, not an obvious degradation of quality in certain areas.

By the way, these are just observations.

---

Quote:

---

The assets used to create the trailer were actually older than what was shown during last week's Letter from the Producer Live. Also, depending on the area shown, the lighting, as well as hair, neck movement, and facial properties are still being adjusted.

---

Just saying