Thread: can someone explain the whole 1.0 graphics > 2.0?

indeed, the bards were casting with their hand the songs. almost all casting spell was with the same animation, Cure as paladin was awesome tho !

I remember 1.0. I think 2.0 looks considerably better. And unlike 1.0, you can change the graphic settings and resolution in game on the fly. In 1.0, if you wanted to do this, you had to exit the game, run the game config utility, relaunch the game. This really stunk. And if you ran full screen mode and alt-tabbed, pressed the window key, or did anything that caused the game to loose focus, the game would exit. A game released in 2010 should not function this way. Although the game allowed you to run it in a bordered non-sizable window. It was so awkward that a third party tool (WindowerXIV) was released.

2.0 uses the same textures as 1.0 for characters. 1.0 had a few awful textures for the environment (the ground). The game also used some very ugly environmental texture mipmapping. It was very noticeable in towns. Setting the Graphics Quality option to 9 or 10 help remedy this efect, to this but doing so resulted in a large performance hit. Most players felt it was simply not worth it, and stuck with setting "8" or lower.

1.0 had much more complex movement animations. It also had animation lock. Reversing direction would cause your avatar to stop, lean as she turned around, and slowly start running the opposite direction. It looked nice while being INCREDIBLY ANNOYING! I remember this most with Ifrit (Hard). I can only imagine if a fight like Titan existed in 1.0.

Weapon skill animations we're more elaborate in 1.0. But w/ the animation lock, they could be annoying to execute. Sure they looked nice, but not being able to move or execute anything else until the animation completed was a pain.

I did make a video of the "Spirits Within" and "Rage of Halone" weapons skills, slowed down 50%. Interesting to look at, if you'd like. It's short too.

Originally Posted by ErzaScarlet77

are you serious? that looks so bad wtf
it takes like 5 minute to kill an enemy and everything looks so stiff. also was 1.0 battle turn based or something?

sometimes i feel like saying 1.0>2.0 is an inside joke that im not a part of

Not turn-based, but heavy auto-attack based
Like in ARR, the skills in 1.0 cost TP. But unlike ARR, you don't start with full TP, but with 0 TP and every hit you did to an enemy gave you some TP.
So the battle begin with you standing there, let the auto-attack hit the enemy until you earned enough TP to begin the real fight.

1.0 is that classic tale of developers focusing way too much on graphics without thinking of the repercussions of having said focus in them. Yoshi-P said himself one of the biggest faults of 1.xx's development was that the developers focused way too much on the graphics and then tried to work the game play in afterwards. The results we got were really poor optimization that eat up even the best (at the time) PC's graphical and processing power. You could only load 20 people at once, game could easily crash if there is too much going on, and so on. So yes, while 1.xx's graphics are technically better, their faults outweighed everything else.

2.0 took game play into consideration first, and then optimized the graphics around it. What common sense developers should be doing. I still like 2.0's graphics more because it does a ton more quality of life features than 1.xx ever did. You can complain and argue about how realistic they look in comparison, but being "realistic" isn't always the best design choice. I believe 2.0 did a better job transitioning the art and design to the world and it definitely feels a lot more Final Fantasy in terms of design and the world. 1.xx felt like it focused too hard to make it look appealing to westerners, when 2.0 focused more making a FF world.

In short: