Question for Devs: why v1.0 looked so nice...

**Bigtotoro** · 02-14-2014 01:51 AM

Was hoping a dev could jump in o0pn this one. was looking back at some 1.0 screenshots and was still blown away at how good it looked. v2.0 does look amazing, but max 1.0 vs max 2.0, 1.0 was still a lot nicer in things like lighting and model textures.

I was wondering what the difference was in modeling technology was between the two??
Was the modeling in 1.0 done using a different method? if so, what? Or was it just some sort of higher detailed version of what is currently implemented?

If that's the case, could someday a sort of Extreme mode graphics preset be added to make it look more like 1.0? I know 1.0 was very hard to run, but for those of us with high end PC's, it would be cool to crank it up even more, especially if 1.0 type graphics could be achieved.

Thoughts?

**Estellios** · 02-14-2014 02:16 AM

2.0's lighting is miles better than 1.0's... mostly because it actually has lighting effects.

As far as stuff they have said on the matter, 1.0 used the same engine as FF13 which makes some pretty textures but is horribly unsuited for MMO games where a ton of characters need to be displayed onscreen. I believe 1.0 could only display 30-40 characters onscreen, both Player and NPC included in that number.

And just FYI there is a Direct X 11 client in the works that is going to be intended for high end PC's.

**Errors** · 02-14-2014 02:45 AM

Since we are in a sharing of personal opinions. I think 2.0 looks miles better than 1.0.

/wander off

**Linadae** · 02-14-2014 02:50 AM

1.0 was an amazingly beautiful game but because of the horrible optimization you'd need one of NASA's super computers to see it in it's true glory.

**Felis** · 02-14-2014 03:06 AM

Because graphic got a higher priority than gameplay.

As example limited display of 30-40 objects (players, NPCs, enemies)
And big lag if there were more objects than it can be displayed. As example during the Atomos event, a teleport to a camp where Atomos showed up needed 5 minutes to success. You pressed on Teleport, chosed the destiny and then you waited and waited until your character teleported already. And that was during 1.23

**Tupsi** · 02-14-2014 03:13 AM

Yep, all they had to do was redo 1.23 on a new engine - majority of XIV's problems was engine choice. Crystal Tools is an amazing engine, just not for MMORPGs.

**Roris** · 02-14-2014 03:22 AM

More attention to detail in characters, better use of shaders and bump/normal maps, higher quality textures, better gear reshaping system to reduce clipping, use of filters to accentuate scenes, more intense shadows and better use of contrast. Also just because some people will be itching to reply "well yeah but it got a 4.0 and had copy pasted everything and you needed a super $200000 computer because I don't know how computers work or I'm stuck playing on a 2005 laptop", you can have both good graphics and also improve and optimize everything else, yes you can have your cake and eat it if there's enough effort put into something instead of rushing it again to meet deadlines, but I guess some people don't know what a middle ground and will always go for extremes.

**Bossycow** · 02-14-2014 04:07 AM

**Magis** · 02-14-2014 04:09 AM

Also the cutscenes were so much better.

http://youtu.be/CqV84_rKfxU?t=5m17s

**Errors** · 02-14-2014 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Magis

Also the cutscenes were so much better.

http://youtu.be/CqV84_rKfxU?t=5m17s

Yeah, just don't get anything from the 1.0 cutscenes.

Warning: Spoiler for 2.0 players so beware of clicking this.
http://youtu.be/5_jckKzlQj8?t=3m53s

Thread: Question for Devs: why v1.0 looked so nice...

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Question for Devs: why v1.0 looked so nice...

Tags for this Thread