Question about 1.0 FFXIV

[Kallera]

id rather have the missing animations. there were different voices too.

[Malzian]

Hello everyone!

Thanks to another thread, I discovered a collection of all the cutscenes from the original FFXIV MMO. The look of the cutscenes are quite striking.

Sort of dreamy, with these wonderful, rich shadows, and good, sharp detail. I was wondering if we could have an optional setting or a texture pack which would capture this look?

id rather have the missing animations. there were different voices too.

In 1.x the intention was to take the graphical styling on XI and push it even further beyond that graphical fidelity as far as they could. To that end, the graphics contained an ASTOUNDINGLY high polygon count to the point where even simple objects were achieving counts that character objects reach today (aka: OP flower pots). However, in chasing down this ideal they went a goodly bit too far and ended up with a graphical system that nearly no computer of the day could handle. Even by today's standards the graphics were overkill when it came to processing power.

Due to this, the cutscenes needed to be just as graphically stunning and all had to be prerendered cinematics whereas the cutscenes we have today are mostly rendered with the in-game engine. The result (since the game had to be rebuilt graphically from the ground up to a sensible standard) is that the cutscenes are much lower graphical fidelity but they can also do a lot of things that the pre-renders can't, such as account for differences in the player character's appearance, class and gear.

Would it be nice too have that level of graphical detail back? Yes, but the amount of computing resources that would make it feasible to do that in the game system is significant and would likely erode playability at its expense.

Edit-
For the voices... Voice actors move on to other things, some stop doing VA and some (as we unfortunately know all too well) pass away while their voiced characters live on. Without being able to produce the content quickly and consistently you're probably going to see voice changes here and there, which is why so many MMOs have little to no voice acting in consistent characters.

[Shurrikhan]

In 1.x the intention was to take the graphical styling on XI and push it even further beyond that graphical fidelity as far as they could. To that end, the graphics contained an ASTOUNDINGLY high polygon count to the point where even simple objects were achieving counts that character objects reach today (aka: OP flower pots). However, in chasing down this ideal they went a goodly bit too far and ended up with a graphical system that nearly no computer of the day could handle. Even by today's standards the graphics were overkill when it came to processing power.

I take this inflated factoid and raise you anecodatal experience.

In 1.23 at Desktop (Standard) settings I ran around 30 fps (when running in Windowed Borderless; there was a strange fps loss in true Fullscreen with no noticeable graphical improvement)
Upon ARR's release at Desktop (Standard) settings I ran around 30 fps (whether in Full Screen or Borderless).

They bogged equally (little) under particle effects and (noticeably) when loading many characters at once on screen. Shadows in some cases bog more heavily in Luminous than they did with Crystal Tools.

Luminous came with the advantage, apparently, of supporting more doodads on screen at a time, allowing for the more cluttered / compact ARR world design. But it has yet to show that it can maintain the same graphical fidelity as Crystal Tools, while averaging nearly the same FPS (at least with my old potato of a computer and my newer but equally powerful laptop). Maybe ARR just struggled with those particular computers, while providing some huge FPS jump to others, but I would imagine, after fixing the Fullscreen issue on 1.x, that the FPS increase in the transition was more the outlier.

[Malzian]

I take this inflated factoid and raise you anecodatal experience.

In 1.23 at Desktop (Standard) settings I ran around 30 fps (when running in Windowed Borderless; there was a strange fps loss in true Fullscreen with no noticeable graphical improvement)
Upon ARR's release at Desktop (Standard) settings I ran around 30 fps (whether in Full Screen or Borderless).

They bogged equally (little) under particle effects and (noticeably) when loading many characters at once on screen. Shadows in some cases bog more heavily in Luminous than they did with Crystal Tools.

Luminous came with the advantage, apparently, of supporting more doodads on screen at a time, allowing for the more cluttered / compact ARR world design. But it has yet to show that it can maintain the same graphical fidelity as Crystal Tools, while averaging nearly the same FPS (at least with my old potato of a computer and my newer but equally powerful laptop). Maybe ARR just struggled with those particular computers, while providing some huge FPS jump to others, but I would imagine, after fixing the Fullscreen issue on 1.x, that the FPS increase in the transition was more the outlier.

Not entirely inflated factoid (yes, I may have exaggerated a little at one point, but...), as a tile from 2.0's release makes clear...



The ARR team specifically said that the high poly count was one of the main reasons they had to remake the game.

[bass9020]

The ARR team specifically said that the high poly count was one of the main reasons they had to remake the game.

And it seems because of one flower pot we are all being punished, its like a really bad joke at this point. But I say ENOUG IS ENOUGH, lets not stop until we finally get a real response from the devs or actually see upgrades to the game!

That flower pot needs to go to the bin and stay there.

[Malzian]

And it seems because of one flower pot we are all being punished, its like a really bad joke at this point. But I say ENOUG IS ENOUGH, lets not stop until we finally get a real response from the devs or actually see upgrades to the game!

That flower pot needs to go to the bin and stay there.

Flower pot's been in the bin since 2.x and it's not coming back. It's not just 1 flower pot, though. EVERY flower pot in 1.x was like that. More than a couple in an area would cause pretty terrible lag.

And by the by, for anyone interested in ALL of the reasons 1.x was remade, this is a good series for it: https://youtu.be/CJ9CmxaQ3q8?list=PL...x4HT5oBemN23vr

[bass9020]

Flower pot's been in the bin since 2.x and it's not coming back. It's not just 1 flower pot, though. EVERY flower pot in 1.x was like that. More than a couple in an area would cause pretty terrible lag.

I know, it was more a joke since that picture is forever ingrained in anyones mind when it comes to 1.0. :P

[Mook_Mook]

Different engine and such. 1.0 used crystal tools, which was an in house engine from SE that was forced upon tanaka to use and it was not good for MMO. Great for single player games. While 1.0 was a beautiful beautiful game, at the time of release it took a power house of a pc to run. I think near the end of the its life span a good computer could run it while looking great. The game was really beautiful compared to what we have now, but it came with a performance cost.I am not sure a texture pack is something that is possible, but I miss the combat animations.

[MicahZerrshia]

at the time of release it took a power house of a pc to run.

Not 100% accurate. I had a mid-range at best. My pc was a $300 pre-build with a cheap gpu upgrade at that time and it ran the game fine on med settings. The requirements for this game were on the higher side but are also a bit overdramatized, especially nowadays.

[Kacho_Nacho]

In 1.x the intention was to take the graphical styling on XI and push it even further beyond that graphical fidelity as far as they could. *snip*

Would it be nice too have that level of graphical detail back? Yes, but the amount of computing resources that would make it feasible to do that in the game system is significant and would likely erode playability at its expense.

Thanks for the informative post. I had no idea of this. Still, it would be nice to have a higher polygon/higher texture option. All I can do is ask.

I'll look into Reshade but I don't think that'll work with a Mac.