FFXIV 1.0 graphics

[Sylve]

Everyone wants them to bring back the graphics from the original game. That game was from 2010 so even if they did bring them back they would still be four years outdated.

Because they don't want to cut two thirds of the sub-base off from the ability to play without a 600 dollar investment? Also, PS3.

PS graphics are fine. Best of a lot of MMO's I've played recently. Some are just downright ugly.

[Kule]

Because they don't want to cut two thirds of the sub-base off from the ability to play without a 600 dollar investment? Also, PS3.

PS graphics are fine. Best of a lot of MMO's I've played recently. Some are just downright ugly.

This is the PC. have you never heard of scalable graphics? Loads of games now offer 'optional' high res texture packs, if you have a low end PC you can still run the game at the bare minimum.

[Felis]

This is the PC. have you never heard of scalable graphics? Loads of games now offer 'optional' high res texture packs, if you have a low end PC you can still run the game at the bare minimum.

you mean like this?

[Huginn]

you mean like this?

yes, like that. I have seen that, normally on cards that are below the minimum specifications. In fact, i do believe that the current game would not run on a system that required you to play at that low level of detail in 1.0

Rather than cut down all of the graphics so that the window spanning hardware is the same size, i would have liked to have seen the graphics we currently have as the low end and allowed those of us who are willing to spend $1200 on an upgrade to have super high end graphics. Yes, the lighting effects are much nicer, but we cant even have nice shadows anymore. have you seen what the highest resolution tree shadows look like?

[BobbinT]

you mean like this?

What are your specs back then?

Besides, I think you tweaked your configuration wrong. Even on my laptop which has Core2Duo 1.6 mhz with Nvidia G210M, I still could manage getting good graphic.

This is example taken from my laptop:


And here's me saying goodbye to 1.0 forever on Dec 31, 2012 23:57

[ArkhamNative]

This is example taken from my laptop:
And here's me saying goodbye to 1.0 forever on Dec 31, 2012 23:57

FWIW that's over half of the maximum number of characters that engine could show on-screen at a time.

[Buckles]

FWIW that's over half of the maximum number of characters that engine could show on-screen at a time.

Versus how many can it show now? During Odin or just strolling through Rev toll people pop out of thin air 10ft in front of me on a crowded (every) day...

[ReplicaX]

Versus how many can it show now? During Odin or just strolling through Rev toll people pop out of thin air 10ft in front of me on a crowded (every) day...

ARR
In a single grid, a maximum of 100 characters will be displayed. Since NPCs and monsters have display priority, the monsters themselves do not actually disappear, but once more than 100 players enter a grid, certain characters are no longer displayed. The system was set up to hide objects from other grids, so even if hundreds of characters gather, stress is not placed on your PC.

I'm not gonna even get into 1.0 as it was like less than 50 displayed and not by grid but total. All you had to do was walk into a retainer ward back then to see it.

[ArkhamNative]

Versus how many can it show now? During Odin or just strolling through Rev toll people pop out of thin air 10ft in front of me on a crowded (every) day...

In v1, it was just over 40 (total, for all mobs, NPCs and PCs). The game can do 100 now.

The places you mention easily have several hundred. Even assuming infinite graphics capability, the game has to load in textures and models for each (gigs of RAM or lots of disk thrashing), plus deal with limits of bandwidth (sending gear/position/action info x 100), and server power (determine highest priority 100 for up to 1000 players (zone maximum)). As someone else mentioned, they use grids and/or sub-zones to keep the resource usage reasonable.

As for WoW and textures, I have never played, but from images everything structurally looks chunky (extremely low polygon count). There are tradeoffs. To excel in one thing they need to scale back in others.

[File2ish]

What are your specs back then?

Besides, I think you tweaked your configuration wrong. Even on my laptop which has Core2Duo 1.6 mhz with Nvidia G210M, I still could manage getting good graphic.

This is example taken from my laptop:


And here's me saying goodbye to 1.0 forever on Dec 31, 2012 23:57

This I'm having trouble believing. My laptop (core i5 M450 and a geforce 310m) couldn't pull that off without the frame rate dropping below 5FPS and overheating within a couple minutes. Low settings at native resolution didn't really have a huge improvement either and it looked like ass. I could've maybe pushed 15-18 frames with the lowest settings (which I believe Felis had in the screenshot), but that's about it. 1.XX's graphics engine was too resource intensive for laptops with the lowest end 200 and 300 series GPUs.