can someone explain the whole 1.0 graphics > 2.0?

[Gyson]

It really doesn't matter how nice 1.0 looked if it lost most users from a performance standpoint, and wasn't capable of displaying more than two dozen characters at a time. That doesn't make for a good MMO.

[Norna]

It would be nice if they could implement a Shadow of Mordor-like system (basically, you get a choice for every graphic settings such as meshes, textures, lighting, shadows, anti-aliasing and so on). It would be a nice way to future-proof the graphics (for example, if the settings are Extreme>Ultra>High>Medium>Low, then today's most powerful gaming PCs can run all settings in Extreme at a reliable 30fps at 4K resolution, but in a few years, it'll be 60fps. All Low would be the lowest we currently have). Because the users would be mixing and matching (Example: Medium meshes with High textures and Ultra lighting) they would hopefully get what works best on their system (some gpu/cpu combinations choke on anti-aliasing but handles lighting better, for example).

[Kule]

I'm with the OP on the comparison of 1.0 to 2.0.

To put it kurtly, too much bloom! Everything looks like it's glowing! How can I appreciate the detail when it looks so washed out?!

So, yeah, I much prefer the color palette and lighting of 2.0.

The good thing about a PC game is stuff like bloom is optional.

[Kaisha]

-depth of field.

Which was almost mandatory to have on, otherwise you see the horrific LoD transitions in the environment in plain sight. Boy was anything in the distance pretty ugly without it.

Main thing I remember from 1.0 was fantastic ground textures, too much bloom (anything yellow would blind you), and wall textures looked like they were made of paper mache. Lack of proper light sources as well. People seem to forget 1.0 had no shadow casting in the environments. It was just whatever was prebaked into lightmaps, and the one shadow per character model on the ground.

[Mahri]

Some technical trivia: 1.0's engine was the same engine used for FFXIII.

It was optimized for displaying cutscenes in small environments. It looked pretty, but it was an absolutely terrible idea to even try using it for an MMO.

[Miya_Carbuncle]

I watched the 1.0 cutscenes for new characters in Uldah, Gridania and Limsa Lominsa and it was shocking to me how much better and more exciting and interesting they are versus the opening cutscenes for those places now. The starter cutscenes now are so boring.

[Battlewrench]

People think the focus was graphics alone but from playing XI and seeing some of the cs's and gameplay on videos I think the goal was to make a world. XI felt like a world I could live in with lore everywhere, I'm thinking 1.0 was similar. Anyone who played chime in and tell me my hopes and dreams are true? Also tell me I'm going to win the lotto soon.

[Gramul]

People seem to forget 1.0 had no shadow casting in the environments. It was just whatever was prebaked into lightmaps, and the one shadow per character model on the ground.

I like that we have dynamic shadows, I just wish they could be softer when it calls for it. Shadows in 2.0 almost always have very sharp edges in spite of the distance and intensity of the light source. Looks great when there's harsh light, but kinda cheap when the light is supposed to be more dispersed.

And one thing I actually really hate about ARR's lighting system is how light sources (especially colorful ones like fluorescent plants) have this ugly splotch around them as an excuse for a glow. It looks remarkably corny and simple.

[Velhart]

The good thing about a PC game is stuff like bloom is optional.

Too bad it wasn't in 1.xx.

What the game looked like if you put it on the lowest possible settings:

[Mishini_Dracoto]

I think it's hilarious that people argue saying they think graphics are better in 2.0. The Deve team specifically stated that they scaled the graphics down. This has been quoted with references multiple times in this thread. It's not really a debate.

The current Dev team, did a much better job at optimizing graphics/processing power. On that, there's also not really a debate. Our clients don't crash nearly as bad as they did in 1.0, AND the game runs on lower end systems. (AND Lower end systems don't crash as much as our PC's did in 1.0.) Mind, I now have a Supercomputer, but . . nya.

The Graphics engine was replaced, and doesn't allow for some of the complexities that 1.0 had, but it still has a large range of capabilities, and the dev team responsibile for managing does a great job.

All in all, this thread is mostly a +1 for the current Dev team.

Thank you for providing us with a game that uses a realistic amount of processing power, while still providing competitive quality in modern gaming.

I do wish, that you would put a bit more effort into cut scenes, similar to the Hildebrand quest line. They don't need to all be silly, but that much effort going into main scenario, and perhaps 1-2 other quests on the same patching schedule similar to hildebrand. (And, I don't mind if they are nonlinear. It would be nice to have diversity)