Are 2.0 Graphics going to be better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syntaxlies

ever quest 2 graphics were far superior to 11 and they released close to each other i think 11 release was late 2003 and everquest was 2004.

---

Nope. XI was developed iirc 1999 - 2001. The game launched in 2002.

we all know buy know that graphics does not make a game, variety yes but not graphics, by far ff14 has the best graphics and i am not sure anything will compare to it, but low graphic mmorpg with great gameplay is always a plus to me then high end mmorpg without anything inside it
and we all know that final fantasy series have the best high end graphics, each game was a staple to others, so i am not woried at all about graphics not being able to compete with other games

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughlyn

FFXI, 2001 in japan i think

---

i live in america

May 16, 2002 JP on PS2, EQ2 Nov 8, 2004 (that is a pretty big gap in terms of graphic quality)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syntaxlies

i live in america

---

LOL! Imma let you finish but I just wanna say that once something is released, it doesn't get upgraded graphically for other regions. 2002 was when it was released, ~16mo later it was released in NA, basically 2 years apart from NA release of EQ2 (if you want to be "technical")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syntaxlies

i live in america

---

What would that EVER have to do with ANYTHING?

it doesn't matter where do u live, ff11 was 3 years older then eq, it was a staple on its own at that time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiriA500

What would that EVER have to do with ANYTHING?

---

the release date was different for country's

its obvious i cant win an argument with the SE white knights even when using facts admitted by SE.(like not wanting to have a dated game by release as was 11)

by the way the US release is considered the real release the Japanese release was an extended beta test like why we have now with 14.

the fact of the matter is is that SE put everything into graphics so that the game would last longer then 11 did graphically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syntaxlies

the release date was different for country's

---

i am still confused what does that have to do with the graphics being better, you are basing your experience by what time u played something, so if i say i was playing ff8 2009, i can say that it has crapy graphics compared to mass effect, but we all know that at the time ff8 was the best there is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syntaxlies

i live in america

---

i live in sweden... point?

anywayz, my point was that it was prolly in development 2-3years
ahead of EQ2, hence the diffrence in graphics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syntaxlies

i live in america

---

But that doesn't change the fact FFXI was developed prior to 2004 and released in 2002, again prior to 2004, also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw0AA...eature=related EverQuest 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63CMh...eature=related Final Fantasy XI.

Both are fairly "low" graphics for their time (2002 and 2004.)

The point is that the rest of the world doesn't exist and thus does not need to be taken into account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syntaxlies

the release date was different for country's

its obvious i cant win an argument with the SE white knights even when using facts admitted by SE.(like not wanting to have a dated game by release as was 11)

by the way the US release is considered the real release the Japanese release was an extended beta test like why we have now with 14.

the fact of the matter is is that SE put everything into graphics so that the game would last longer then 11 did graphically.

---

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/...6ca67e60e3.jpg

I feel like the assets and the textures in this game are fine, but the engine is very poor and doesn't do them justice.
Don't get me wrong in general this game looks very nice, but it runs worse than games doing a lot more technically.
It seems to load a lot of things from the hard drive constantly which really doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Also there is the really low texture draw distance, it doesn't even gradually lower the texture quality its just high quality straight to low quality.
And finally it needs a better lighting engine, and there are no terrain shadows at all.

Also I think with the new engine they should be able to do all this and achieve better performance across the board.

lol you'd have a better chance if you said:

I have an Xbox and it wasn't released until 2006 and had worse graphics than EQ2 which was developed in 2004. But that is besides the point, point is you'd still be wrong. They don't rewrite/redevelop the game for different regions (except for China), how absurd. You sir, have some growing up to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranara

I feel like the assets and the textures in this game are fine, but the engine is very poor and doesn't do them justice.
Don't get me wrong in general this game looks very nice, but it runs worse than games doing a lot more technically.
It seems to load a lot of things from the hard drive constantly which really doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Also there is the really low texture draw distance, it doesn't even gradually lower the texture quality its just high quality straight to low quality.
And finally it needs a better lighting engine, and there are no terrain shadows at all.

Also I think with the new engine they should be able to do all this and achieve better performance across the board.

---

Close -- The engine suffers due to not being built with MMOs in mind, it was more built for seamless transitions and system compatibility, it's the same engine Versus XIII and XIII/XIII-2 uses.

Keeping it simple, good graphics with a bunch of bland, empty environments < slightly decreased graphics with very interesting areas with actual story driven landmarks. As for character models, depends completely on the art style of the game whether they look like they belong or not. That said, I'll take a slight graphics downgrade any day to liven up a dead boring world, not to mention better coding leads to smoother gameplay. And @OP, the graphics are a slight downgrade with more options for low end players while high end pc players are able to experience what you see in that one 2.0 screenshot. In, short a much better engine that should attract more players since you won't be needing a really good pc to handle this games terrible pc optimization. No matter how you look at it, it's a good thing.

Hopefully 2.0 will cut the crap with the rendering and drawing we have now, and stop giving us fake great graphics with crappy lighting. The new xiv pic looks a little darker and like the lighting actually makes sense. So even if the general graphics aren't as great, I'm sure they'll be better than the hero engines (swtor), GWII, and EQnext, which are the three graphically greatest mmos coming out right now. The people building our engine built the luminous, the luminous engine can render pavement better than real life, its insane, and it can make the pavement look slightly interesting! HD GUM ON PAVEMENT! ok i got carried away. Anywho, our engine will still be better graphic wise than any mmo coming out for 4-6 years, but in ease of programming who knows, SE has never liked programming.

Not just graphic, whole game ! Or at least I am giving it high hopes for 2.0 but I gave them for this version of FFXIV before release too. That was a mistake :( !

What makes XIV so incredibly beautiful to me is the lighting, texture quality, and how it reacts to lighting. I'm assuming the new engine won't show off this kind of quality, but will contain greater variety. balancing act

You do know about Luminous...right RedAffinity? The main point of the engine is to use light (and the way it reacts) to create an image that looks realistic. To say that 2.0 won't have better lighting that 1.0 is a little silly imo. Also the ONLY reason lighting in this game looks decent (if you dont break it down and analyze it) is because they have "spotlights" in effect to highlight certain things but the problem is they don't really make complete logical sense on a global scale. X_x; Luminous + Crystal Tool Engine hybrid would more than likely fix that and give just as lush textures as well as even more dynamic lighting.

(this is coming from someone who took numerous lighting design classes in college)

They've already said that one of the primary goals of the new engine is to improve scalability. This doesn't just mean lowering the tech requirements. It means it should scale better with whatever hardware you have. This means if you have a lower end machine, you get less shiny effects, less characters/monsters on screen, but still get a decent framewhite. Conversely, if you have a high-end machine, you'll have more on screen at once, and possibly fancier graphics.

This is oooold news. I wish people would stop worrying about it.