Why do so many textures look like they are from a ps2 game?

[Alexandre_Noireau]

Do you mean, XIV version 1.0 was so much successful with its insane graphics, that SE had to shut it down and tune down the graphics because they were making too much money and they felt bad of making so much success with that awesome flower pots?

Very bad argument.
The problem of XIV was not the graphics, was their poor optimization, two different things (related, yet not equal).

The problem of XIV was honestly, a massive amount of terrible design decisions and who knows how many terrible company decisions from behind. Good graphics and other systems are not mutually exclusive. Great games tend to have great graphics. And don't get it wrong, photorealism or high polygon count or ultra 8k res textures or whatever fancy anti-aliasing or raycasting technologies do not make great graphics. Great graphics are graphics that convey themes, that are able to communicate players a more important message than just to fake a sense of realism. On the contrary, bad graphics usually happen when they either get in the way of the art design or intended message of a particular area, map, zone, game, etc. Always of course, aiming to be within budget, using the more broad array of hardware and targeting a broad number of customers/players. Frostbite wouldn't work for XIV for example, and this game engine is obviously not working either, but is what we got, at least don't mess the poor designers work by forcing them to work on terrible low res textures, like, have some respect for them and the players.

The whole "politic" of "same experience through platforms" is something that can only be explained by the sturbborness and that weird sense of duty some japanese have at this point, because in all honesty, there is absolutely no reason -logical, design, marketing, etc- to limit PC to the restrictions of PS4.

Im sorry to pop the bubble of many here, but contrary to popular belief, even by MMORPG estandars, FFXIV doesn't have great graphics... Point is, most graphics of its first iteration were better in 2010. And is actually hurting many of the messages, art direction, etc, the game tries to communicate. Everything in a game does it job, graphics, audio (music AND sound), gameplay (main game systems) and finally narrative (and how is told). If anything is missing, failing, not fulfilling its purpose, it hurts the overall product... No matter how you put it... Quoting Ahoy: "They say graphics are not important, but i've yet to see a game without them." They are called VIDEOgames. Sight is one of the more information heavy senses we humans have, eyesight is basically how we begin interacting with the whole world... If something seems off, the brain will notice, and for god's sake, textures in this game LOOK DAMN BAD.

Most of the reviews praising this game graphics, date back to 2013, more honest and current reviews usually don't mention it as an issue, thinking that most "professional" reviewers of this game will probably play only an expansion at best, a few hours at worse. They don't have to deal with it for hours and hours and some more hours.

Is not much more complex than that, game, at least for PC needs a graphic overhaul, textures and shaders need an upgrade... For PS4, well, nothing, it probably is pushing it already... PS5 will probably need a graphic upgrade. But i honestly think is silly, we PC users have to wait till PS5 release to see something we should have since the start, that or give us mod tools and ill gladly will do, for free, that job. Right now i cannot because no tools, im not an expert programmer and it would probably get flagged as ilegal anyway. Maybe one of few things the japanese gaming industry need to learn from their western counterpart.

[LalaRu]

Very bad argument.
The problem of XIV was not the graphics, was their poor optimization, two different things (related, yet not equal). ...

But, at the end, 1.0 was just... unplayable. That's all. Technicism about "graphic and optimization are two worlds apart" doesn't change much, the final result was what it was: only the few "elects" with (very) powerful game rigs were able to play it.

My beta test was a slideshow. No wonders I didn't sub or played it after beta.

[Alexandre_Noireau]

But, at the end, 1.0 was just... unplayable. That's all. Technicism about "graphic and optimization are two worlds apart" doesn't change much, the final result was what it was: only the few "elects" with (very) powerful game rigs were able to play it.

It changes it all. 1.0 was unplayable not just because graphics; Serverside client and interface were pretty much what destroyed that game, with the boring stale combat system and very restrictive progression just to hide the fact the game didn't had any end game content... The optimizations issues where just the tip of the iceberg.

The graphics were fine. If for you it played like a slideshow, thats the serverside client and the optimization, not the graphics.