Update on DirectX 11 client?

[misterrpg]

Oh god, there is so much wrong stuff here.

Anyone saying that 2.0 looks better than 1.0 you're absolutely wrong. You're just wrong. You can't even argue it. 1.0 in all technicalities has better textures, lighting, water effects, etc. than 2.0. 1.0 used a different graphical engine that favored more powerful machines. 2.0 was built with the PS3's limitations, not PC's.

Also, all of those giving me random dates, nice sources. You forgot to list them.

Ugh, this community...

[Althea]

Oh god, there is so much wrong stuff here.

Anyone saying that 2.0 looks better than 1.0 you're absolutely wrong. You're just wrong. You can't even argue it. 1.0 in all technicalities has better textures, lighting, water effects, etc. than 2.0. 1.0 used a different graphical engine that favored more powerful machines. 2.0 was built with the PS3's limitations, not PC's.

Also, all of those giving me random dates, nice sources. You forgot to list them.

Ugh, this community...

Right? I've seen so many threads of uninformed people making requests that aren't reasonable or intelligent. My biggest fear is that SE will listen to them because they seem to be the vocal majority here.

People also seem to be confusing the graphics engine with world design. The graphics in 1.0 where just incredible. The HDR bloom, the animations, the high texture resolution. However, ARR took away those because lolps3. Instead, though we did get very beautiful world design, in which the worlds themselves are less copy/paste and filled with more stuff.

Don't get me wrong ARR's graphics are great. But 1.0s where better. The game mechanics are on a whole other level, though. 1.0 felt more like a tech demo. ARRs mechanics are more mainstream (which is good if they want the game to actually survive). However it's netcode and SEs poor transparency is still crippling it; hugely.

[klepp0906]

However, ARR took away those because lolps3.

Sorry software design isn't my strong suit. Explain to me why the ps3 would have anything to do w/ the PC version? In terms of graphic capability of course. They obviously made it possible to run the pc version at a much higher resolution, and to toggle and customize all these effects etc... so why not better textures for the pc version? The PS3 version not being able to run them shouldn't be our problem nor effect us.

If I didn't plan on the ps4 version I would have boughten a ps3 version and im not a moron, I would expect it to not look as good but I understand common sense is a very rare commodity among the internet population. Anyhow, question is legitimate and still stands.

Pro tip Square, enough w/ the 1000 character limit. WE cant even quote ppl ffs

[MageBlack]

-three posts calling out people-

You do realize this is a necro thread... the people you are talking to will probably not respond.

[Gardthorne]

Anyone saying that 2.0 looks better than 1.0 you're absolutely wrong. You're just wrong.

You have terrible opinions. 1.0 was arguably the biggest failure in the history of the entire genre, so trumpeting that you like it so much is a giant red flag for everyone to point and laugh. I'm sorry, but throwing higher resolution textures at something doesn't automatically make it look more aesthetically pleasing. 1.0 was a dead, ugly, artificial looking world. In every way that matters 2.0 is superior.

You can't argue that one game has a better engine so it's better looking. The engine doesn't matter if the design is atrocious.

[Shioban]

Oh god, there is so much wrong stuff here.

Anyone saying that 2.0 looks better than 1.0 you're absolutely wrong. You're just wrong. You can't even argue it. 1.0 in all technicalities has better textures, lighting, water effects, etc. than 2.0. 1.0 used a different graphical engine that favored more powerful machines. 2.0 was built with the PS3's limitations, not PC's.

Also, all of those giving me random dates, nice sources. You forgot to list them.

Ugh, this community...

You simply cannot difure Features vs. Design, even if opinions differ between whether who enjoyed 1.0 or 2.0 more-so.

1.0 < Lots of Features, terrible care in design.

2.0 < Lots of Features, great care in design.

1.0 had some nice technical capabilities, ones that actually used more memory and processing power than was necessary, this limited the games market for the number of people who could play it to a very select few, we had bland repetative areas that had no thought or care into their design, it was just repeated barren landscapes and empty cities.

As a sacrifice to making 2.0 run efficiently, textures were compressed, topology reduced, lighting/shadow rendering changed to Deffered Rendering. This allows the engine to scale further whilst retaining detail, where a top end PC and a lower end PC differ less-so than 1.0's beastly engine.


You're not a troll by any means, but it's been proven that 1.0 simply had no thought or care to it in terms of environmental design or accessibility for its target market, which is why we're sitting on a remake right now.
(I loved 1.23, but we're getting so much more out of 2.0)



TL;DR

1.0 focused more on technicalities and less on design and accessibility and failed.
2.0 focused less on technicalities and more on design and accessibility and succeeded.

There's nothing more one can say...except opinions.

I'm sorry, but throwing higher resolution textures at something doesn't automatically make it look more aesthetically pleasing. 1.0 was a dead, ugly, artificial looking world. In every way that matters 2.0 is superior.

You can't argue that one game has a better engine so it's better looking. The engine doesn't matter if the design is atrocious.

Pretty much this ^^^

It's unfortunate that you're wrong about that. Bugs that were present from the very beginning on PS2 and PC were never fixed, and the client got consistently slower and glitchier every expansion pack. Most amazingly, every new generation of GPU released had decreased performance. Going by this past track record, we shouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens to XIV. I'm hopeful that they will at least attempt to release a DX11 client, though.

They are releasing one, it's planned for release along with the PS4 version of the game between February>March.
The original poster was throwing a little fit because Square Enix haven't spoon-fed him more information about something that's months away.

[Arale]

Anyone saying that 2.0 looks better than 1.0 you're absolutely wrong.

You're high if you think 1.0 had better lighting/water effects. Texture resolutions definitely, but I remember many a boat ride with the MURKIEST/MUDDIEST water textures, and the actual rivers and other small streams in the game were a joke compared to what they are now. As for lighting, plenty of screenshots can prove that 1.0 had terrible lighting and very few shadows to reinforce any kind of lightning from the sun/explosions/lamps/etc. We may have been on different settings, but I ran around in max, and aside from textures, what most people say directly conflicts to what I seen from beta up until 1.23. It was a incredibly textured brown, green or green-white mess depending on what zone you were in.

[Felis]

Anyone saying that 2.0 looks better than 1.0 you're absolutely wrong. You're just wrong. You can't even argue it. 1.0 in all technicalities has better textures, lighting, water effects, etc. than 2.0.

Haha, better water effects in 1.0 ^^
I hope this was a joke

1.0 used a different graphical engine that favored more powerful machines. 2.0 was built with the PS3's limitations, not PC's.

1.0 was unfriendly to average PC , 2.0 is friendly to average PC